Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BOURNEMOUTH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Youth Unemployment

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of youth unemployment at the latest available date.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): On 10 January 1985, 197,678 claimants under 18 years of age were unemployed in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hughes: Are those not alarming figures? It is all very well to talk about training, but training for what? Will the Minister bear in mind that in careers offices throughout Wales there are only 200 notified vacancies? In this International Year of Youth, does he not feel that youngsters deserve a better deal?

Mr. Morrison: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the document that the Labour party has produced today, especially the passage that states:
For young people, Labour's aim is a high quality two-year programme of education and training. The Youth Training Scheme must be recast to meet the needs of all 16 and 17-year-olds".
That is precisely what my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have announced. It is nice to have the Labour party following us.

Mr. Powley: Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as the introduction of measures by the Department of Employment for the employment of youth, there is a need for him to liaise with the Department of Education and Science to ensure that school leavers are properly equipped with all the necessary skills to enable them to take their place in employment?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we have taken the initiative of introducing a pilot scheme of vocational education. It is sad that many Labour-controlled education authorities are not willing to participate in the scheme. They do not see the need to bridge the gap between education and work.

Mr. Fatchett: The Government regularly claim that low wages will provide the answer to youth unemployment. If so, why is the lowest rate of unemployment in the south-east, the region which has the highest wage levels?

Mr. Morrison: Presumably the hon. Gentleman is aware of the agreement between the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union and the employers, which resulted in a significant reduction in the level of apprentices' wages. As a result, the number of apprentices trebled. Surely that speaks for itself.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what response he has had so far from employers to the excellent extension of the youth training scheme to two years? Will he also confirm that in future the scheme will be biased more towards securing jobs at the end of the day?

Mr. Morrison: The employers' response so far has been encouraging, as was demonstrated by what the CBI had to say after my right hon. Friend's announcement. I am sure that all employers realise that to invest in a two-year training scheme is in their interests as much as it is in the interests of the trainees.

Mr. Sheerman: In the light of those dreadful figures for youth unemployment, surely the Minister must join his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who seems to know that the Government are pursuing a Luddite theory in linking low wages with youth employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Fatchett) has observed that youth unemployment is lowest in the south-east, where wages are higher than elsewhere. When will the Minister give up theories that fly in the face of common sense, sound economics and the lessons of history and start to do something to create real jobs for young people?

Mr. Morrison: It seems that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he was speaking this morning. The right hon. Gentleman, when launching the Labour party's new document, said that there was no easy answer to these problems. The Government's answer is a soundly based economy that will win back jobs on a competitive basis.

Factory Inspectors

Mr. Caborn: asked the Secretary of Stale for Employment what recent representations he has received about the number of factory inspectors in post.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Bottomley): There have been nine representations since 1 January. Six have been from representatives of trade unions.

Mr. Caborn: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, to achieve improved health and safety at work, more direct action is needed by the factory inspector at the place of work? The problems involved in the storage and production of chemicals, which are covered by the hazards regulations which were passed a few weeks ago, will


require more inspection, especially in conurbations such as Sheffield. There was a major fire in Sheffield, and the factory inspectors expressed disquiet about the ability to control such hazards.

Mr. Bottomley: The whole aim of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the activities of the executive are to build in safety rather than to try to bolt it on afterwards. The regulations for the storage of chemicals are very much in the mind of the Health and Safety Executive. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman discovered a good deal more helpful information during his visit with the area director to the Brightside fire site.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the factory inspectors who were sent to Leicester to investigate the so-called sweat shops and who gave Leicester a clean bill of health?

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will recognise that interpretations of the report will vary. The important issue is that not only factory inspectors but management and safety representatives should continue with their assault on unsafe conditions and try to ensure that occupational safety and health are continuously improved.

Mr. Haynes: I would understand and accept the Minister's point, provided that was happening. Is he aware that, because of the Government's cuts, there are nowhere near sufficient inspectors in industry? It is high time the hon. Gentleman woke up and did the job that he was elected to do.

Mr. Bottomley: I am always grateful for the encouragement of hon. Members. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should re-read the Health and Safety Commission's plan of work.

Employment and Trade Union Acts

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Employment Acts 1980 and 1982 and the Trade Union Act 1984.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): It is already clear that the Employment Acts 1980 and 1982 and the Trade Union Act 1984 together represent a significant improvement in rights of union members both in protecting them against the abuse of closed shop power and in ensuring that their views are taken into account before being required to take industrial action.

Mr. Knox: Has the legislation been framed to deal with ballot rigging? Will the legislation deal with allegations of ballot rigging in the Transport and General Workers Union?

Mr. King: The election took place before the provisions of the 1984 Act are due to come into effect. That will happen on 1 October 1985. The first change is that, with effect from July last year, we require the setting up of a new register by 1 October to keep an accurate and correct register of members. A presumption in favour of postal voting will also apply. Those provisions will clearly help.

Mr. Hoyle: Does the Secretary of State agree that, rather than anti-trade union Acts, measures to strengthen the trade unions are required, especially to protect them from companies such as Exclusive Cleaning and

Maintenance Ltd. at UKAEA, Risley where 130 women cleaners have gone on strike because their wages have been reduced by 21p an hour, from £25 to £22·50 a week, despite the fact that the firm's profits have increased by 32 per cent.? Will he advise his colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment to sack this anti-trade union firm from its cleaning contract for the House of Commons and the House of Lords? Will the right hon. Gentleman do so, despite the fact that this firm contributes to the Conservative party?

Mr. King: I fail to understand how the hon. Member could describe as anti-trade union provisions that give greater democracy to union members. I am reinforced in that view by the MORI poll carried out for "Union World" on Channel 4, which found that 75 per cent. of union members supported secret ballots before strikes were held and 70 per cent. wanted secret ballots for union elections. Those are precisely our provisions, and I am glad that they have the overwhelming support of union members.

Mr. Madel: In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) said about possible ballot rigging in recent Transport and General Workers Union elections, should not the TUC satisfy itself that everything was done correctly in those elections?

Mr. King: Without wishing at this stage to enter into the details of those union elections, clearly the stories that have emerged, the allegations that have been made and the disciplinary action already taken leading to the dismissal of union officers in Bristol give rise to serious anxiety. It is precisely because it is important that union elections carry credibility that we put through our provisions in the Trade Union Act. They will prove overwhelmingly to be to the good of unions' reputations in the future.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he and his colleagues rejected proposals from the Opposition and Conservative Benches for the introduction of secret postal ballots in the 1984 Act? Do not the TGWU irregularities confirm the evidence that we presented to the Committee and to the House at that time? Will he therefore reconsider the Government's position and introduce secret postal ballots as the norm for trade union elections?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's memory fails him. He will recall that the changes that we subsequently made required that, so far as reasonably practicable, everyone entitled to vote in an election must have a voting paper sent to him by post at his proper address and be given a convenient opportunity to vote by post. My understanding is that it is likely that the TGWU will be changing its future arrangements for the election of its national executive committee because of the need to conform with the new requirements.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those Acts were put on the statute book to redress the imbalance brought about by the Acts put on the statute book by the Labour Government, who gave powers to trade union barons and leaders and removed those powers from the members? The Conservative Government put the power back where it belongs—with the membership—and made the leadership accountable.

Mr. King: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I notice that Opposition Members are fond of criticising the


trade union legislation. I want to hear from them whether they propose at some future stage—if they ever have the chance—to take away from union members the right to have a vote and a say before they are called upon to take industrial action.

Mr. Winnick: When will the Secretary of State realise that penal laws and sanctions against trade unions cannot make employees stay at work if they feel strongly over an issue, as we saw yesterday at the Mount Pleasant sorting office? Is he aware that, just as previously when anti-union legislation has been passed by a Tory-dominated House of Commons, this law will be repealed like the rest of them?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman shows by that question just how much he is out of step with the general stream of union thinking. My understanding is that in the postal dispute to which he referred, the union membership will invite its members to vote in a proper ballot. I hope that the whole House will welcome that development.

Mr. Galley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whilst the 1984 Act was a valuable contribution to employment law, the time is now ripe for further action, and that the Government should issue a Green Paper about the possibility of making strikes illegal and making binding arbitration agreements legally enforceable in essential services, such as teaching, health care, gas, electricity and water? That would have considerable public support.

Mr. King: I note what my hon. Friend says. That is not what we put before the country at the election. We said that we would consult about essential services to ensure that they were governed by adequate procedure agreements, breach of which could lead to loss of immunity. I am considering that matter in the light of lessons learnt in the recent miners' dispute.

Mr. Evans: May I give the Secretary of State and the House an assurance that the next Labour Government will repeal every scrap of Tory anti-trade union legislation? Is the Secretary of State aware that there is mounting suspicion that some Ministers, in particular the Prime Minister, are urging industrialists in general and chairmen of nationalised industries in particular to use Tory industrial relations legislation to create industrial disputes so that they can take on the unions? Surely, employment Ministers should recognise that co-operation, not confrontation, is what is necessary to put right Britain's economic problems?

Mr. King: Obviously, we listen carefully to that statement from the Opposition Front Bench, made with the full authority of the Labour party. I think we now see that in future union members are to be denied secret ballots — [Interruption.]—and are not to be allowed to have a say before they are told by their union leaders whether they have to strike. We now see the party of the ballot riggers in full cry.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Winnick: Dirty slander.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We often hear things in the Chamber that we do not like.
Later—

Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, arising from Question Time, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State

for Employment to make a slanderous statement about the "party of ballot riggers" and is it the kind of conduct, that you expect from Ministers at the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Speaker: I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the whole House that moderation in language is the essence of our debates.

Community Programme

Mr. Hirst: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to expand the operations of the community programme.

Mr. Tom King: I have asked the Manpower Services Commission to expand the community programme by a further 100,000 places by June next year. At that rate it will then be providing some 300,000 places on the programme in a full year.

Mr. Hirst: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and assure him that it will be warmly welcomed in the west of Scotland. What will be the geographical disposition of the extra places? If there is a surplus of unfilled vacancies in parts of England, will my right hon. Friend be prepared to allocate them to other parts of the United Kingdom where there is unfilled demand?

Mr. King: I am aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes. I can confirm that, because I have written a letter to the MSC asking it to consider ways in which the programme could be expanded. We shall be giving consideration to just those points, and to the fairest method of allocation of those additional places. I am sure that the whole House supports the expansion of the community programme. There may be differences about the extent to which it can be expanded, but it is widely welcomed, and we are anxious to see how effective we can make it in helping the long-term unemployed.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Secretary of State aware that I have been a consistent advocate of the community programme in the northern region, particularly Cumbria, over the past few years? Will he assure me that the county of Cumbria, particularly west Cumbria, which includes my constituency, will receive a substantial increase in the number of community places?

Mr. King: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has taken as close an interest as any hon. Member in the programme. His criticism has been that he wants more places; it has not been of the programme itself. He will not expect me to reply in detail to the points that he made. We are not yet able to say what the exact allocation will be, but I take note of the points that he raises.

Ms. Richardson: Does the Secretary of State accept that nobody will believe that the Government intend to expand the community programe unless they withdraw the change in the rules that deliberately excludes married women from the community programme? Does he agree that that is simply massaging the figures? Does not the House agree that, as the Equal Opportunities Commission suggests, it is illegal?

Mr. King: Inadvertently, the hon. Lady was not correct in what she said. Of course, the scheme is limited to benefit recipients. The hon. Lady may say that that may tend to disadvantage married women, but it does not exclude married women per se from the scheme, as the


hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will tell her. The difficulty is that there are not as many places as people would like on the community programme. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I had to try to find a determinant of greatest need. That was how we determined benefit recipients in this case.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The expansion of this excellent programme is most welcome, but will my right hon. Friend consider allowing more flexibility in the period for which people may work in it and the length of time for which elderly workers have to be unemployed before they qualify for a place?

Mr. King: We do not propose any major changes in the rules at this stage, but I note the points raised by my hon. Friend. We have already announced two developments which I hope will be helpful. We are anxious that the programme should be expanded in the most effective way so that it will genuinely help the long-term unemployed.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that restricting the period of employment to one year bears excessively heavily on voluntary bodies which use the programme to continue their project administration? Will he consider widening the rules so that such bodies can keep people in employment and continue their management projects?

Mr. King: I note that point, which has been raised with me before. I understand that exceptions have been made in certain cases, but we will certainly consider the matter again.

Skillcentres

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, following the reorganisation of skillcentres, more training will be provided locally where the skills are needed.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Yes, Sir. For example, we plan that in Lincolnshire the number of people being trained will more than double next year.

Mr. Carlisle: I welcome that news, but does my hon. Friend accept that it is important to make good training available where people live and work and that effective training is an essential arm in the battle against unemployment? In organising this substantial expansion, will he consult locally to ensure that training really meets local needs?

Mr. Morrison: I assure my hon. Friend that the greatly increased number of places that will be available for adult training and retraining will involve local consultation with industrialists and trade unions. I am delighted to see from the Labour party document that the Opposition also want a big expansion. Their problem is that that great expansion cannot be achieved without the reorganisation of the skillcentre network.

Mr. Eastman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee on Employment has been pursuing an extended inquiry into skill shortages and has found that the Confederation of British Industry is not playing its part in providing funding and skills training compared with the position in Germany and America? When will the Government put pressure on the CBI to spend some money on providing the skills that it needs?

Mr. Morrison: I have made it clear, not just to the CBI but to all employers, that it is principally their duty to provide funding for training. I shall continue to reinforce that message. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman joins me in that.

Mr. Whitfield: Does my hon. Friend agree that the chambers of commerce have an important part to play in the provision of training? Does he further agree that the Kirklees and Wakefield chamber of commerce is to be commended on the fact that it has its own training company which has provided no fewer than 800 places in that area? Should not other chambers of commerce be encouraged to do likewise?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware that that particular chamber of commerce plays a significant part in new training schemes, as do others throughout the country. That achievement certainly deserves congratulation and encouragement.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the reorganisation each skillcentre will be dealt with on merit? If so, should not the Millbrook annex which serves my constituency, come off his hit list, first, because it is full, secondly, because it offers today's rather than yesterday's skills, and, thirdly, because it is extremely well supported by local industry?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend and others came to see me about this matter. As my hon. Friend knows, officials of the Manpower Services Commission and the Skillcentre Training Agency are discussing with local employers the position with regard to that particular annex.

Job Release Scheme

Mr. Woodall: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to extend the scope of the job release scheme.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): As I announced to the House on 15 March, changes to the part-time job release scheme will be introduced from 29 April to make it more attractive to both employers and employees. The rules will be more flexible and a grant of £840 will be payable to an employer supporting a successful application for part-time job release.

Mr. Woodall: Does the Minister not agree that increasing the age of eligibility for men from 62 to 64 was a grave mistake, in view of the Government's insistence that unemployment should not be the only option for young people and the fact that they are presiding over record dole queues? Would it not be better to allow men aged 62 and over to take early release so that jobs could be made available for young people who hitherto have not had a chance under the Government?

Mr. Clark: All our special measures are governed by judgments about priorities and about where the emphasis should best be placed. That is why we have introduced and improved the part-time scheme, which covers the very age groups to which the hon. Gentleman rightly considers we should give consideration.

Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend keep this matter carefully under review? Many of my hon. Friends believe


that improvement of the scheme goes very well with expansion of the community programme and the YTS, as it will ultimately help young people to get jobs.

Mr. Clark: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. Reducing the age makes it less easy to monitor the replacement condition, which is one of the most important aspects of the scheme if the taxpayer is to get good value.

Mr. Canavan: As this incompetent Government have increased unemployment by 73 per cent., will the Minister consider extending the job release scheme to the entire Tory Cabinet?

Mr. Clark: I shall not be drawn on the question of reshuffles. However, I believe that not many members of the Cabinet fulfil the age criteria for the scheme.

Single Persons (Income)

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the average growth in real income for a single person on 60 per cent. average national income for each of the last five years for which information is available.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: For a single adult on 60 per cent. of the average national gross weekly earnings of all adult male employees, real take-home earnings, that is real earnings after deducting tax and national insurance, have increased by 5 per cent. over the past five financial years.

Mr. Davies: I hope that the Minister takes no comfort from those figures. In Wales, some 34 per cent. of households have an income that is 60 per cent. or less than the Welsh average. Given that Wales has one of the highest levels of unemployment—20 per cent.—are not claims that only wage moderation will produce more jobs not only pious but offensive and divisive?

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will agree that there is the greatest moral case for lifting people's incomes by getting them into work. Secondly, he will also agree that if we can avoid increasing nominal gross earnings by six times the rate of real income increase from employment, we shall find ourselves with more jobs rather than fewer, because the figures show that earnings have risen six times faster than real take-home pay.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of employment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tom King: The employed labour force in Great Britain increased by 342,000 between September 1983 and September 1984 to 23,494,000.

Mr. Proctor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that greater attention should be paid to the number of people who are in work and the increase in their numbers as well as to the number of those who, unfortunately, cannot get work?

Mr. King: It is true that, contrary to the experience of the previous three years, in the past year we have seen an encouraging improvement in the number of people in work. Our ambition now — reinforced by the measures announced in the Budget — will be to see that rate accelerating in the year ahead. I am somewhat encouraged

by the measures that we have announced and the further measures that we are taking. This is the only major industrial country in western Europe in which the number of people at work increased last year.

Mr. Foot: The Secretary of State asks us to take encouragement from the number of those in work and to concentrate on those figures. Does he realise that chart 5 on page 7 of the employment paper which he published last week contains the employment figures over the years and shows that the best period for civilian employment was between 1974 and 1979? Those are the very years in which Labour was said not to be working. Will the right hon. Gentleman now give us an apology, or perhaps ask for his money back from Saatchi and Saatchi?

Mr. King: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has just warmly endorsed our policy of putting the facts before the nation. There are important facts to be understood about both employment and unemployment in this country.

Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we can win more jobs only if Britain wins a greater share of world trade? That means British industry and British commerce being more competitive.

Mr. King: I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. However, I believe that we are winning the argument. I was pleased to hear even the Leader of the Opposition say today that of course jobs depend on customers. If we are getting that message across, even to the slowest of Opposition minds, we are at last making progress.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Secretary of State concede that since the Conservative party came to power there has been a record number of bankruptcies? Will he now take some lessons from his senior colleagues, and from the right hon. Gentleman who spoke after the Budget statement, who made it crystal clear that unless the Government changed their policies there would be no hope for the unemployed? Will he learn this lesson from his colleagues?

Mr. King: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was referring to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If so, it should be noted that although the Budget did not receive universal acclaim, I cannot recall any other Budget that was followed so quickly by two reductions in interest rates and by the sharpest improvement in the value of our currency to succeed any Budget.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as the new technologies will get rid of as many—if not more — jobs as they create, we should take an imaginative look at the way in which we can make more jobs available? It is time that we thought, for example, about reducing the retirement age of some workers and doing away with large-scale overtime such as occurs in the Post Office, and which is the cause of the present dispute.

Mr. King: I note what my hon. Friend says, and his point about overtime is very relevant. In the current dispute, it would be interesting to know whether those who profess such concern about unemployment are prepared to adopt a more sensible approach to levels of overtime and to give more encouragement to part-time working.

Mr. Prescott: May I make it clear to the Secretary of State that many of us think it absolutely contemptible that he could produce a White Paper on employment without making a statement to the House about it. In the interests of truth, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the latest figures produced by the Central Statistical Office, which show that during the last five years of the Labour Government there was an increase in jobs of 315,000, which compares with a loss of 1·8 million jobs during the five years of a Tory Administration? Does he accept that for every new job created by the Labour Government, six jobs have been lost by this Tory Administration? That shows that it is a deliberate part of this Government's policy to create mass unemployment.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman asked about making a statement to the House. I should make the situation clear, because no discourtesy was in any way intended. I have just checked the record. There have been 20 White Papers in the past year: five have been accompanied by statements and 15 have been published without it being thought necessary to make a parliamentary statement, although there may have been debates and discussions on them. I confess that when I was a Back Bencher I was one of the considerable number of hon. Members who preferred to have a chance to read a White Paper before jumping to instant comment. I make that quite clear. I thought that the announcement of the Opposition's new campaign would herald a rather more intelligent discussion of the unemployment problem in this country. The hon. Gentleman knows that we have lost a very substantial number of jobs and that I have discussed those losses on more occasions than I care to recall. I hope that he can raise the standard of debate, because it does no service to the unemployed if we debate unemployment in abusive terms of that kind.

Public Limited Companies (Employee Involvement)

Mr. Bruce: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to monitor the operation of section 1 of the Employment Act 1982 requiring public limited companies to include employee involvement statements in their annual reports.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Department has been analysing reports from a large number of companies. I shall report the outcome to the House. Some reports seen so far are disappointing, but many bear out recent research evidence that employee involvement arrangements in companies are varied and widespread.

Mr. Bruce: In view of the mixed reaction so far to the Government's analysis, will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government propose to take to ensure that companies comply with the terms of the Act, and whether they propose to make a statement on employee involvement?

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until the first analysis is published by the Government. Other institutions are also carrying out analyses. However, I can help the hon. Gentleman, and the companies, by saying that the aim of section 1 is to make sure that employees systematically get information that is of concern to them, that they or their representatives are consulted on a regular basis, that employee involvement is encouraged by employee share schemes or by other means and to achieve a common awareness on the part of

all employees of the financial and economic factors affecting the performance of the company. Any company that believes it does not need such involvement needs to think again.

Mr. Janner: If the Minister accepts the principle that industrial democracy is necessary for this country, and if it is recognised that section 1 of the Act is hopelessly inadequate, do the Government intend to continue to block the draft fifth directive of the European Community?

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the Government are opposed in principle to inflexible prescriptive legislation on employee involvement. We are very much in favour of employee involvement and workplace participation, but we believe that it can be better achieved by means of voluntary, varied arrangements.

Mr. Penhaligon: May I remind the House that the amendment to this Act was forced upon the Government by an alliance Member of the House of Lords? Our impression is that the Government's heart is not in this matter, in that they are merely making inquiries and are not demanding that companies fulfil the legislation that was passed by this House.

Mr. Bottomley: The whole House acknowledges, I believe, the debt that it owes to Lord Rochester for pushing this forward and will also acknowledge that the Government have taken it on board. My role, and my keen interest, is to foster employee involvement so that companies prosper, employees share in that prosperity and more people who at present are out of work come into work.

Lambeth

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently unemployed in Lambeth or on youth training or similar schemes.

Mr. Peter Morrison: On 14 February there were 25,458 unemployed claimants in the borough of Lambeth. Nine hundred and eighty young people are currently receiving training under the youth training scheme and some 1,300 more people are benefiting from other employment measures.

Mr. Fraser: Does the Minister realise what a strain unemployment at that level throws on a community? Can he tell us when the Government's and the Prime Minister's economic and social policies will have reached such a high degree of success that they will be able to restore unemployment to the figure of 14,000 at which it stood at the time of the Brixton riots and the Scarman inquiry?

Mr. Morrison: I think the hon. Gentleman would be better advised to address that question to the Lambeth borough council, which deliberately does not wish to participate in the community programme that has been provided for all the long-term unemployed in Lambeth.

Mr. Rowe: As somebody who until comparatively recently lived in Lambeth, may I point out to my hon. Friend that had it not been for the constant and rapid rate increases in Lambeth a great many of the enterprises which could be providing jobs would still be there?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. During the course of the last two years the rates have more


than doubled in Lambeth. That is bound to have an effect on businesses coming into that borough and therefore is bound to have a bad effect on job opportunities for those who live in the borough.

Wages Inspectors

Mr. Sean Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any new plans to increase the number of wages inspectors.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Will the adoption of either of the two options in the consultative paper on wages councils result in a reduction in the number of wages inspectors employed?

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman and the House will do better to wait until the consultation period is over and the Government announce their intention.

Mr. Thurnham: When my hon. Friend considers the future of wages councils, will he bear in mind that it is not just younger workers, but older workers, who want the opportunity to enter the job market free of all restrictions?

Mr. Bottomley: I think the House will accept that, whatever decision is taken, in the end there will be a conflict of interest between those out of work who might be offered and be able to accept employment and those in employment who want as much protection as they can reasonably have.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the Minister admit that since 1979 the Government have deliberately and significantly cut the number of wages inspectors to encourage employers to pay illegally low rates as part of their strategy of pretending to create jobs while attacking the lowest paid people in Britain, showing that they respect only the laws that they favour?

Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements.

Mr. Evans: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings wth ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to attend a dinner given by Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Evans: During the course of her busy day, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to rebut the argument proposed by many of her hon. Friends that wages councils should be abolished so that the unemployed can be priced back into work at the expense of some of the lowest wage earners in the land? Does the Prime Minister accept that that argument is immoral and impudent as well as Luddite?

The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will perhaps be aware that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in its report on employment outlook in September 1984 said:
Increases in relative youth wages appear to have reduced their employment in a number of countries.

Moreover, I fail to see what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about on our policy on wages councils, because the previous Labour Government abolished the road haulage wages council in 1978.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Has my right hon. Friend read the report in the Daily Telegraph to the effect that in its attempt to indoctrinate our children ILEA's aparatchiks are ordering the removal from school libraries of books such as "Robinson Crusoe", which is imperialist and "Jane Eyre" which is sexist? In deploring that witch hunt, will my right hon. Friend agree that girls helping their mums and boys helping their dads is as natural as pictures showing Socialists in opposition and Tories in government?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Kinnock: At the so-called rates summit at Chequers last Sunday did the Prime Minister and her colleagues give their attention to the Audit Commission's report, the views of the Tory-controlled Association of County Councils or the British Chambers of Commerce, all of whom conclude that the biggest single factor accounting for the doubling in the rates burden in the period that she has been in office is her systematic and continuous series of cuts in the rate support grant?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that the rate support grant also comes from taxes levied on people and businesses, and businesses are hit both ways. Therefore, the important thing is to hold a severe restraint on public expenditure.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister's answer makes it clear that last weekend's affair at Chequers had much more to do with trying to ease political pressures on her Government from irate Tories in Scotland and the forthcoming county council elections than with easing burdens of taxation of any kind on the families and businesses of Britain. Will she now, with all that performance, promise to abolish the rates again? If she does so, who will believe her, especially when she has ratted comprehensively on those undertakings twice in the past 11 years?

The Prime Minister: Last week's seminar on rates—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to hear the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Last week's seminar on rates was to review the work of the review of local government finance announced last October by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. With regard to the 1974 election, which, as the right hon. Gentleman reminds me, this party lost and his party won, may I point out a promise in the 1974 Labour manifesto, to the effect that prescription charges would be abolished, a promise which the Labour Government never fulfilled.

Mr. Fry: Despite the claim of the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend accept that her determination to reform the rating system will have massive support throughout the country, particularly if this leads to an ending of the inequality whereby many on low incomes have to pay and many on high incomes do not pay at all?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the rating system is an inequitable system. It will take a great step to reform it, and it will be very complicated, but we hope to bring forward proposals to do just that.

Mr. Steel: Has the Prime Minister read reports this morning that the Westinghouse corporation in America is claiming to have the contract for the Sizewell reactor in the bag? Does she agree that that rather prejudices the report of the inspector, and will she give the House an assurance that the Government are not prejudging the issue in any way?

The Prime Minister: We had this question some months ago when the Central Electricity Generating Board informed the Sizewell inquiry, last year, that it had placed the contract for the primary circuit for Sizewell B with Westinghouse. This contract involves a firm commitment for the design phase only. If the right hon. Gentleman recalls my reply then, I said that it was necessary to do that to keep open the possibility of developing Sizewell, should planning permission be given. In fact, the CEGB estimates that 93 per cent. of the total cost of Sizewell B will be placed in the United Kingdom, should planning permission be given.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the east midlands since she came to power there have been 2,080 bankruptcies? Why is it, if she is prepared not to lift a finger for them, that she, together with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Bank of England, can bail out Johnston Matthey Bankers to the tune of £75 million of taxpayers' money? Is there one law for the bankers and another for the rest? Will she give a guarantee that the report of the inquiry into this squalid deal will be published, or will there be a cover-up for the bankers and an amnesty?

The Prime Minister: I hope that Johnston Matthey will eventually be returned to the private sector. In the meantime, I remind the hon. Gentleman that he supported a strike designed to put many people out of work and many firms into bankruptcy.

Sir David Price: In considering the future of the rating system, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the wise words of the Layfield committee, that whoever is responsible for spending money should also be responsible for raising it so that the amount of expenditure is subject to democratic control?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that the rating system is not a true democratic system, as most of the electorate do not pay rates and therefore there is not proper accountability.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Flannery: When will the Prime Minister stop answering like a latter-day Marie Antoinette? [Interruption.] When will she realise that the game is up—[Interruption.]—and that her reliance on blind market

forces has resulted in an overturn of the opinion polls, the details of which, I trust, she has seen today? Is it not a fact that the jingoism of the Falklands has worn off and that the realities of economic life have now brought into play some powerful figures, who are opposing her, on the Benches behind her? Is she aware that the postmen are lined up against her—[Interruption.]—as are the teachers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I trust that the hon. Member will be brief.

Mr. Flannery: I have had only one minute so far, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but the hon. Member has such long pauses.

Mr. Flannery: Is the right hon. Lady aware that a vote for the Conservative party is clearly a vote for industrial action, because the policies that the Government are pursuing are driving people to extremes, so that inevitably the fight back will come?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman talks of industrial action. He will recall that those who were recently called on to take industrial action did not have the chance to cast a vote in a ballot under Socialism. As for his remarks about opinion polls, I remind him that we are about 8 per cent. better than we were in 1981. If that continues until 1988, the game will be up for the hon. Gentleman not for me.

Mr. Cockeram: Does my right hon. Friend share the view that was expressed by the Governor of the Bank of England to a Committee of this House last night that lower interest rates are not a high priority? Or does she share the view of the CBI, of many on the Tory Back Benches, and others, that lower interest rates have a key role to play in investment decisions?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Governor of the Bank of England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all Members of Her Majesty's Government agree that interest rates have a key role to play.

An Hon. Member: The Governor is not in the Government.

The Prime Minister: I specified the Governor of the Bank of England separately. [Interruption.] I am sorry that that remark should cause such hilarity on the rather silly Opposition Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram) will be aware that no chances must be taken with inflation. Interest rates will be held at whatever level is needed to maintain monetary conditions that will continue to bring inflation down.

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bidwell: Is the right hon. Lady aware that a big lobby is taking place today about the Transport Bill and the effect that it may have on bus workers and bus services in general? Is she aware of the deep apprehension that exists among the members of my union, the Transport and General Workers Union, about their pensions, wages and conditions of service as a result of this crazy Bill? Will she please go into Central Lobby and try to allay their fears?

The Prime Minister: The Transport Bill is an excellent measure. [Interruption.] In the past, subsidies have gone


up enormously while the number of passengers and services have gone down. We hope that services will go up, as they have in the pilot scheme that we have run in several areas.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winterton: Bearing in mind the tremendous impetus that my right hon. Friend has given to industry and employment through the Budget and the encouragement that she has given to industry and domestic ratepayers with the announced intention of the reform of the rating system, may I ask her to give a categorical assurance that the manufacturing base of this country is vital to the Government and that she will do everything in her power to ensure that its present position is not just maintained, but is expanded?

The Prime Minister: The manufacturing base is vital to this country. My hon. Friend will have seen the CBI survey, which has just been released. The CBI expects growth to rise to 4 per cent. in 1985. It expects manufacturing output to rise a further 3·75 per cent. this year; it expects manufacturing investment to grow by a further 13·5 per cent. in 1985; and it expects further

growth in the very high volume of exports that we had in 1984. That was good news and has silenced even the Opposition.

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Powell: The Prime Minister made many references in the House in October to her support for the NACODS agreement that was then drawn up. Will she now ensure that the NACODS agreement is carried out by the person whom she appointed to the chairmanship of the National Coal Board? At least then it will have the agreement that was negotiated in October last year.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy yesterday made it perfectly clear that the National Coal Board stands by the NA CODS agreement and looks forward to further discussions on it.

Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order arising out of Question Time, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible for the Prime Minister to put the record straight and to say that the 1974 commitment was to phase out prescription charges, and in fact 3 million—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now seeking to do what the whole House is against — to prolong Question Time by raising points of order.

European Council

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European Council held in Brussels on 29 and 30 March, at which I was accompanied by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I have arranged for the conclusions of the Council to be placed in the Library of the House.
The European Council effectively completed the negotiations for the entry of Spain and Portugal into the European Community. The treaty of accession will soon be submitted to the 12 national Parliaments for ratification, opening the way for the entry of Spain and Portugal on 1 January 1986.
The terms are very satisfactory for the United Kingdom. In particular, there will be quicker dismantling by Spain in the early years of its high tariffs on certain industrial goods, including cars, to the benefit of the United Kingdom exporters. There will be no detriment to our fishing industry, no reductions in the important quotas available to British fishermen and no new access for Spanish fishing boats to the North Sea fishing grounds. There will be a full opportunity for the House to consider these points when the act of accession is presented for ratification.
The European Council also agreed on the financing of what are called integrated Mediterranean programmes over a period of seven years to help the Mediterranean member states adjust to the effects of enlargement on their own economies. A total additional amount of 1·6 billion ecu — about £950 million — will be made available for these programmes.
As a result of the Fontainebleau agreement, the United Kingdom financing share will be some 7 per cent.—less than £10 million a year. The poorer Mediterranean areas will also benefit from the structural funds and from 2·5 billion ecu of loans from the European Investment Bank.
We had a full discussion of the economic situation, with particular reference to the creation of enterprise and jobs and the achievement of a single large market by 1992. In the course of this I proposed, first, that the European Council should cut the burden of bureaucracy on businesses by reducing the number of existing Community rules and regulations, and should scrutinise any proposed new Community legislation with regard to its effect on business. Secondly, we were all greatly concerned to moderate labour costs and remove restrictive practices, especially with regard to new technology.
The United Kingdom's initiative was widely welcomed in the European council and is reflected in the conclusions. The Commission has been asked to follow it through.
We also broadly endorsed the first report of the Committee on Citizens' Europe. This contains a number of specific proposals for easier movement across frontiers, higher travellers' allowances, right of residence linked to proof of adequate resources, easier arrangements for road transport and mutual recognition of qualifications — all of them designed to bring advantages to individual citizens.
With regard to frontiers, I made absolutely clear the need to maintain strong controls against drugs, terrorism and illegal immigration and also that the completion of the single internal market does not imply tax harmonisation.
The Council agreed the text of the revised decision on the own resources of the Community, and I am arranging for copies to be made available in the Library. It will be submitted to national Parliaments for ratification. The text provides for new own resources generally to be available from 1 January 1986. It also puts into law the Fontainebleau arrangements for abating the United Kingdom's contributions by reducing the amount of VAT paid to the Community. It includes the United Kingdom's 1,000 million ecu abatement for 1984, which will become available after ratification of this decision and without waiting for any general increase in the Community's own resources.
The European Council discussed the measures to strengthen technology in the Community, in particular through mutual recognition of industrial standards and the opening up of public procurement to competitive tender from firms across the Community.
We also discussed East-West relations, welcoming the opening of the Geneva negotiations, and exchanged views on the middle east, Latin America and South Africa, where we expressed grave concern about recent events.
This European Council marks the conclusion of a period of important decisions in the European Community — agreement on the entry of Spain and Portugal; agreement on the implementation of the favourable budgetary arrangements for the United Kingdom negotiated at Fontainebleau; agreement on the integrated mediterranean programmes; progress on the environment, including the recent agreement on vehicle emissions; and the launching of an initiative truly to open up the Common Market and to reduce the burdens on business as a means of stimulating the creation of more jobs.
It is a particular source of satisfaction to us all that 40 years after the end of the second world war the European Community has further demonstrated in this impressive way its capacity to resolve its problems and move forward in a spirit of partnership and co-operation.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: First, I welcome the enlargement of the European Economic Community membership with the accession of the newest European democracies of Spain and Portugal, especially as the pressures generated by that enlargement must surely bring the consequence of radical reform of the Common Market.
Secondly, I endorse the Prime Minister's view that any proposals to dismantle border controls must be resisted so that we can retain that vital means of combating terrorism and drug trafficking.
As the Prime Minister has failed to use the British veto either to control our contributions or to restrict the growth of the agricultural budget, will she now specify the sorts of occasion on which she will use it to protect the interests of this country — can we now assume that she has thrown away the veto?
Does the right hon. Lady admit that, however necessary the extra aid to the poor Mediterranean countries, the programme will involve the redeployment of regional and other funds away from Britain? As half of the Common Market's 15 poorest regions are now in the United Kingdom, why did she not press for a similar programme of help for Britain's stricken areas?
As the Prime Minister appears to have approved the inter-governmental agreement, will she confirm that it involves no switch in budget spending away from the 74 per cent. of the budget that goes to the common


agricultural policy? Against that background, will she tell us why she has allowed the development aid budget to be cut in real terms while the agricultural programme — including food mountains — continues to grow remorselessly?
About 14 million people in Common Market countries are out of work and two out of five of them are under 25 years of age. Why has the summit yet again done nothing tangible to give those people help in getting jobs? Does the Prime Minister agree that the European Council would be better engaged planning jobs than discussing common passports and other gimmicks such as the so-called citizen's Europe?

The Prime Minister: I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said about enlargement and border controls. Prices under the agriculture budget are subject to majority voting and not unanimous voting. Only if a fundamental national interest is involved does the Luxembourg compromise come into play. We are not, therefore, able to exercise a veto on all agriculture pricing matters. [Interruption.] There was no need to use a veto on Spain. It was Greece which attempted to use a veto on Spain and we managed to overcome that by making reasonable arrangements.
Britain has done well out of the social and regional structural funds. The special arrangements under the integrated Mediterranean programme come from the increases in structural funds. It was made clear in the communiqué that the fundamental rules which govern the structural funds will continue to be the criteria.
We examined development aid, particularly in relation to African countries, and a report will be issued shortly. We came to the joint conclusion that sufficient food is being sent and that the real need is to ensure efficient distribution.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, welcome though the entry of Spain and Portugal is, it strengthens the need for effective means of decision making within the Community? As my right hon. Friend said, the use of the veto must henceforth be restricted to when major national interests are at stake.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The veto can be used only in those circumstances. We have had occasion to use it, but the future of these matters will be considered in the debate on the Dooge committee in June. My hon. Friend knows our position. We shall not agree to any change in the treaty on these matters. It should stay exactly the same.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: May I endorse the view implicit in the Prime Minister's statement that this is our most successful European Council, for which a great deal of the credit, as on previous occasions, belongs to the Italian Presidency? Does the right hon. Lady agree that if the entry of Spain and Portugal had been delayed it would have spelt disaster for the whole Community? Does she also agree that, since no further candidates are likely, the Community can finally settle down with a membership of 12 for some time? In those circumstances, how does the right hon. Lady intend to improve the decision-making process? Does she recognise that wanting a reformed and changed Community—as I believe that she and her Government do—unanimity in a Community of 12 is a recipe for inaction and not for change?

The Prime Minister: I think it likely that 12 will be the limit of the Community for a very long time. The treaty provides for unanimity on certain crucial issues. The treaty must continue, since I think that on most issues it is important for debate to continue until unanimity is achieved.
On majority voting, the tendency has been to go to unanimity even on matters such as standards which require only a majority vote for agreement. Where majority voting is possible we can act without unanimity if most countries vote in favour and a small minority abstain.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon three years of sterling work in Europe, the result of which has been greatly to the advantage of the United Kingdom and Europe itself. Does she agree that it is time to press on as fast as possible with the breaking down of barriers to trade before enlargement? After that takes place, things will become much more glutinous and accordingly more difficult to move.

The Prime Minister: One of the comparatively difficult issues to negotiate with Spain was changes in industrial tariffs. It was vital to the United Kingdom to achieve a reduction in Spain's industrial tariffs arid to secure the main part of it in the early part of the transitional period. That has now been achieved, and it would be greatly to the advantage of our car industry if it were achieved. I agree that it is important to break down any further barrier to trade within the Community and to complete the Common Market in internal services.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Prime Minister did not mention the much reported 30-minute meeting that she had with the Taoiseach. To dispel what must be misplaced rumours, what is afoot?

The Prime Minister: There was a brief communiqué issued after our meeting. We had a comparatively short meeting. It was held in the margins and was not part of the European Council. There is nothing further to report. The position is exactly as it was after the Chequers communiqué.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend comment on what the EEC will do about Japanese trade, bearing in mind that the United States of America is finding, as we are, that the Japanese have pillaged much of its industry and its hopes? Are we to act with America in ensuring that at least the Japanese go in for fair competition by opening their country to our products, or are we to sit by in Europe and America while the Japanese grow fruitful and we grow bare?

The Prime Minister: This matter will be considered at the Bonn economic summit. My hon. Friend knows that there is a certain number of voluntary agreements between industries in the United Kingdom and Japanese industries on cars and certain machine tools. One of the fundamental difficulties is that the Japanese people are not as ready to purchase foreign goods as the British people, who are accustomed to doing so. We are constantly in discussions with the Japanese on how they can and should open up their markets further to exports from other countries. No one can expect to export to the whole world unless he is prepared similarly to open his markets.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Bearing in mind the concern which was expressed at the Council about drug


trafficking, is the Prime Minister aware of the unanimous view of the Civil Service unions that the reduction in the number of customs officers has been unhelpful? Does she agree that member countries should be doing far more in allocating resources to deal with this problem?

The Prime Minister: An additional 60 customs officers were put on drug matters, followed by a further 100. We now have 160 extra customs officers tracking down the drugs as they come in. They had a record year last year in the amount that they discovered. Nevertheless, drugs remain one of our most serious problems. I was concerned that if we had only a few checks at borders in the Common Market we might be preventing ourselves from checking the movement of drugs. I made the observation that certain things must be checked at the borders, and it was well received.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Why do we continue to make advances of own resources before they are legally due?

The Prime Minister: They are legally due on 1 January. This was to help Britain, possibly among others, to get its 1,000 million ecu refund this year by a deduction in the amount of VAT that would be payable in future and not by having to go through the previous arrangements with the European Parliament.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Does the Prime Minister recall that the Commission's President urged wealthy countries to pay more to help the poor nations of the EEC? That obviously included us. Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is undermining our claim for European funds by his bogus party political claim that Britain is no longer the sick man of Europe, especially in view of the fact that our wealthiest and relatively more prosperous area—the south-east—is, in terms of income per head, below the national average?

The Prime Minister: I doubt very much whether the right hon. Gentleman would wish us to compete for resources with Portugal, Greece and certain parts of Italy. With regard to the financing of Mediterranean programmes for some of those countries, we shall be paying 7 per cent., but Germany will be paying 33 per cent. and France 27 per cent. All told, we have a reasonably good deal. I should have hoped that Opposition Members would be prepared to help poorer countries and to help Portugal which, after all, rose up and asked for its country back from the Communists who threatened it.

Mr. David Harris: Will my right hon. Friend explain how the fishing agreement with Spain is not to the detriment of our fishermen when the number of Spanish fishing boats in the western approaches to Cornwall will increase and Spain's hake quota will more than double? Given those increases, what steps will we take to increase our policing to ensure that there is no wholesale increase in cheating by Spain?

The Prime Minister: I said in my statement that there will be no detriment to our fishing industry. There will be no reductions in the important quotas that are available to British fishermen and no new access for Spanish fishing boats to the North sea fishing block. I think that I am right in saying that we do not take up our full amount of hake. To let the Spanish have a larger quota of hake will,

therefore, not affect our fishermen. I think that, on the whole, the hon. Gentleman will find that this is a very good fishing agreement. The fisheries protection fleet will continue to keep its normal careful watch on overseas vessels.

Mr. Russell Johnston: In dealing with enlargement, which is very much to be welcomed, the Prime Minister stressed throughout her statement that the terms were not just satisfactory but "very" satisfactory to the United Kingdom. Does she agree that, if enlargement is to work, Spain and especially Portugal, where poverty is marked and which threw off the yoke of Salazar, rather than the Communist party, should be treated with not just political understanding but economic generosity? That is very important. Is the North sea agreement permanent or transitional?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will remember that, well after Salazar, Portugal was nearly taken over by the Communists and it could have stayed a Communist country. Due to the great bravery of the Portuguese people, Portugal was rescued from that for democracy. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Opposition do not appreciate the fantastic efforts made by the Portuguese people.
Spanish vessels will be subject to strict limits on the number of boats, permitting 150 to fish at any one time. There are strict reporting and monitoring requirements. Spanish vessels will have access only to those species controlled by the TAC and the quota under the common fisheries policy for which Spain receives quotas under the EC — Spain fisheries agreement — hake, monk, megrim and anchovy. Spanish vessels will not have access to the North sea. Those measures are to endure for the full duration of the common fisheries policy — to the year 2002.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much of the disillusionment in this country with the Common Market is due to the great disparity between its aims and the realities? The internal market is choked by national restrictions and internal air fares are outrageously high. Will my right hon. Friend devote all her considerable gifts and energy to making real progress on these matters before 1992?

The Prime Minister: One of our objectives is effectively to complete the internal market. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is not yet complete, as clearly there are a number of non-tariff barriers operating, and we are far from completing an internal market in services. I agree with him that air fares are one of the matters with which we have had difficulty. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been successful in negotiating much cheaper fares on a bilateral basis, in particular, to Holland and Luxembourg. We have set the year 1992 for the completion of an effective internal market.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Bearing in mind the Government's well-known policy for the reduction of taxation and expenditure within the United Kingdom to the pain of the people of this country and of her party, is it not anomalous that expenditure and taxation within the EC are increasing?

The Prime Minister: With the agreement that we have obtained, the amount that we shall be spending and that will be going towards Europe is less now than it would have been if we did not have the Fontainebleau agreement.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us on the Conservative Benches are pleased with the result of the European Council and her role, but may we none the less have a word of reassurance about the position and role of the Gibraltarians?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, the border between Gibraltar and Spain was fully opened a short time ago. That was absolutely necessary to enable the enlargement to go ahead. The position of Gibraltar is protected.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the discussions on latin America to which the Prime Minister referred in her statement, can she give us the names of those countries that supported her attitude towards President Alfonsin?

The Prime Minister: I cannot remember the particular name or the country being mentioned in our discussions.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the reasons why she was in favour of the accession of Spain and Portugal was her belief that thereby she would support democratic government in Spain and Portugal? Will she further confirm that, if Turkey adopts a democratic Government and applied to join the EEC, she will be in favour of that application?

The Prime Minister: If that were the case and Turkey applied, we should have to decide what position to adopt. I recognise the force of the point that my hon. Friend is making. The European Community is a community for which democracy is an absolutely vital condition of entry. One of the reasons why we are anxious to have Spain and Portugal in is to enlarge the area of democracy and to consolidate in those countries. I do not believe that we shall be faced with another application shortly, but if we are we shall have to consider it.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Does the Prime Minister remember the referendum campaign in 1975 when giant posters bearing the words of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) promised jobs for the boys through Britain's entry into Europe? What happened? Does the Prime Minister recognise that Britain's membership of the Common Market has cost £1·5 million a day since then? For that, working people in this country are on the lowest level of social security benefits as a percentage of former earnings, compared with any of the Ten. What did the summit do to take up those problems?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is plainly wholly against the EEC. There is a communiqué on what we are trying to do about jobs. If he wishes to read in more detail, there was a full economic report following the Dublin European Council. Yes, there are problems on unemployment in Europe. There are far more problems than in the much freer enterprise economics of the United States and Japan. If perhaps we followed more their free enterprise tenets, we might have more jobs.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that before the House debates the treaty of accession and ratifies it we shall be given the

fullest possible information about the cost of the enlargement of the Community to the United Kingdom and her people, in particular, the potential loss of social fund benefits, regional fund benefits and the flood of money from the CAP, from north to south, after the entry of Spain and Portugal?

The Prime Minister: We shall, of course, put as many of the details of the costs as we can before the House, but our share of the enlargement costs, because of the agreement which we negotiated at Fontainebleau, is only 7 per cent. That was a very good agreement for Britain.
With regard to the regional and social funds, as was said in the communiqué:
The structural fund will continue to operate normally on the basis of a Community-wide regional policy in accordance with the regulations which have recently been revised.
Over the past five years the regional fund has committed £1,236 million and the social fund has committed £1,245 million to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has done very well from both funds.

Mr. Eric Deakins: How can the Prime Minister justify improved rights of residence in Britain for people from the Common Market when our own Commonwealth citizens are so shabbily treated by the British Nationality Act and the immigration rules and procedures? Will the right hon. Lady come to my constituency in Walthamstow and justify to my Commonwealth constituents the reason for the increasing inequality between them and Common Market citizens?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a part of being a common market. We arranged during the discussion of the Committee on Citizens' Europe that the right of residence in one another's country should be linked to proof of adequate resources. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that decision.

Sir Anthony Grant: In view of the fact that one of the biggest burdens upon business today is instability of exchange rates, was there any discussion about Britain joining the European monetary system, particularly as the majority of exporting industries in this country now support such a policy?

The Prime Minister: Not at this particular meeting, although we have had such a discussion before and shall probably have it again in June. The recent instability has also affected the currencies in Europe. Indeed, the deutschmark has been affected as much as if not more than sterling, so joining the EMS exchange rate mechanism has not shielded people from the shifts in the dollar, and would not do so.

Mr. John Evans: By how much will unemployment in Britain be reduced as a result of the measures adopted at the summit, and what were those measures?

The Prime Minister: As I have said, the measures were to encourage the development of enterprise, which was discussed in detail at the Dublin Council and in particular to try to get growth in labour-intensive industries, which are many of the service industries. There were measures designed to get across the fact that unit wage costs are very important. The hon. Gentleman is aware that it may be right for him to ask that question, but it is most unwise for anyone at this Dispatch Box ever to answer it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there are two other statements and a ten-minute Bill before we reach the Committee stage of the Interception of Communications Bill, so I ask for brief questions.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the completion of western Europe through the inclusion of Spain and Portugal, but as she looks for a positive direction as Europe goes forward will she give an undertaking that she will not attempt to make any changes that undermine her right to veto increases in expenditure programmes or the right of the House to throw out any legislation with which it may disagree?

The Prime Minister: On the latter point, there is nothing that I could do to undermine the rights of Parliament. They are absolutely vital. On the veto, I believe that the position should remain as it is under the treaty, together with the Luxembourg compromise.

Mr. Gerald Malone: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Scotland there will be a broad welcome for the accession to the Community of the democracies of Spain and Portugal? Is she further aware that the sharpest criterion brought to bear on those accession arrangements is by fishermen in the north-east of Scotland? According to that criterion, she has passed the judgment of those fishermen, and accession is welcomed.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The fishery provisions gave rise to a great deal of negotiating difficulty, but I believe that we fully protected the rights of our own fishermen in the agreement that we obtained.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Bearing in mind the resistance in this country to changes in our currency, will my right hon. Friend say whether there was any discussion of a common currency for Europe and, if so, what was said?

The Prime Minister: From time to time there are requests and expressions of hope that the ecu will become

much more of a common currency than it is now. Of course, the ecu is dealt with in the City of London. Undoubtedly some of our Community colleagues would wish it to begin to rival the dollar in its importance as a reserve currency. I confess that I believe that it will take a long time before that happens.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: In the light of the welcome news of Spain's accession to the Community, can my right hon. Friend tell the House when she expects to have an extradition treaty with that country?

The Prime Minister: I cannot at the moment. The matter is being pursued in the customary way.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for ordinary men and women the elimination of passport controls would be one of the most tangible and welcome consequences of British membership? Will she give the House an assurance that Britain will participate fully in any such experiment?

The Prime Minister: Subject to what I have said about checks at certain frontiers—I believe that they are vital to apprehend those dealing with drugs and in terrorism, and illegal immigrants — it is important that we have freer movement among the countries of Europe.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the nature of the pay-off to Greece and the extra payments to Italy and France for agricultural restructuring? Does she agree that that will increase the production of Mediterranean foodstuffs and lead to the same problems of surplus that we have with milk and cereals?

The Prime Minister: The figure is about 1·6 billion ecu—less than £1 billion—for the three countries over a period of seven years to enable them to make the necessary changes and adaptations to their own economies, bearing in mind that many of their products will have enormous increases through the enlargement, with the accession of Spain and Portugal. I agree that we already have surpluses, and it is for those countries to make the requisite changes over that period using the moneys to enable them to do so.

Postal Services

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the possibility of disruption to postal services as a result of industrial action by members of the Union of Communications Workers.
The Post Office has been discussing with the UCW for several months a number of measures to improve productivity and provide a more reliable mails service. The need for improvemt has been indicated over many years, most recently in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the letters service, published in September last year.
Negotiations last weekend resulted in a failure to reach an agreement acceptable to both parties. Some UCW members subsequently refused to continue operating the optical character recognition machine at the Mount Pleasant sorting office yesterday and were suspended. That led to a walk-out by staff. I understand that, following an injunction granted to the Post Office in the High Court, the afternoon shift reported at 2 o'clock today, and the OCR machine is now operating normally.
Subject to certain derogations, the Post Office enjoys the exclusive privilege of providing a letters service in the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), the then Secretary of State for Industry, told the House on 16 July 1980 that powers are available to remove the monopoly, either in a local area or nationally, and that those powers would be used in the event of industrial action within the Post Office that resulted in a cessation or serious decline in the quality of service. That remains the case.

Mr. John Smith: Does not the Secretary of State realise that the settlement of the differences between the Post Office management and the UCW over quite difficult matters such as the proposed large increase in part-time workers and the use of OCR machines throughout the country can be satisfactorily achieved only by negotiation and a real attempt by both sides to reach an agreement? Is it not remarkable that in the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to make to the House today, at no stage did he refer to negotiations or wish the process of negotiation any success? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that at this very moment discussions are taking place between the executive of the UCW and the chairman of the Post Office? Would it not be better to encourage that attempt to settle the dispute rather than, at this delicate stage, to make a provocative and ill-judged threat to withdraw the Post Office monopoly?

Mr. Tebbit: I have made no threat whatever. There has been no provocation and nothing that has been done either by me or by the Post Office management has been ill-judged. I understand that negotiations have been resumed and I welcome that. I believe that it is best not to comment on those negotiations at this stage, but I hope that they will come to a fruitful conclusion.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: As disputes of this kind are very difficult to resolve once they have started, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is nothing to prevent ACAS intervening in advance of any

dispute if the parties are unable to reach agreement? To the extent that a dispute is possible, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the Government's duty to allow and encourage the maximum movement of mail in this country? Is he satisfied that there are private sector companies ready and willing to do that?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right. ACAS is ever ready to offer assistance but it is up to the parties to agree on whether they wish to take advantage of such assistance. One of the most important aspects of the dispute is the fact that the Post Office has used the injunction procedure and thereby ended the industrial action. The question of suspension of the monopoly therefore does not arise at the moment as there is no problem with the post. Should the post be interfered with, I should, of course, have to consider the matter most carefully.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does not the Secretary of State realise that the fears of the workers at Mount Pleasant sorting office in my constituency have been exacerbated by the management's provocative action in unilaterally introducing new technology and productivity measures? Does he agree that it is even more provocative for the Government now to be making implied threats about the future of the Post Office monopoly?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman refers to the introduction of new technology as though the machine in question had not already been working for a year.
New technologies mean major changes in the way we work and how we live. In the Britain of the future, we will need a new flexibility in the way we work — with less hours at work, a positive approach to new technologies, a new priority to training and retraining throughout our working lives".
The prose may be pretty turbid, but that is the kind of stuff being put out in the names of the Leader of the Opposition and a pop singer called Bragg.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As the TUC is constantly telling the Government to encourage the cutting down of excess overtime so that more people can be taken from the ranks of the unemployed, will my right hon. Friend invite the TUC to support the Post Office, which is proposing exactly that by cutting overtime and employing more people at present out of work?

Mr. Tebbit: The formal view of the TUC was expressed in its paper presented to the March meeting of the National Economic Development Council. It said:
Although in limited cases for short periods overtime can provide extra flexibility it rapidly becomes entrenched and inefficient.
We all agree with that, don't we?

Mr. John Ryman: Will the Secretary of State concentrate on the real issues in the dispute? Is not the truth of the matter that the Government are now pressuring Sir Ronald Dearing to bash the Post Office workers, just as they pressured Mr. MacGregor to bash the coal miners? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Post Office union's conference takes place in six weeks' time and that if negotiations had been conducted with a bit more diplomacy and sensitivity these issues could have been amicably resolved? As it is, on 15 April part-time and casual workers are to be introduced without consultation or agreement with the unions. Will the Secretary of State use his good will to allow common sense to prevail in the negotiations and restrain the charman of the Post Office from taking such hostile measures?

Mr. Tebbit: I gather from the hon. Gentleman that there is some criticism of the chairman of the Post Office. I must confess that I would not differ from the view that Sir Ronald Dearing is superb, inventive, humorous, loyal—

Mr. Ryman: Like you?

Mr. Tebbit: Indeed. Those adjectives were applied to Sir Ronald Dearing by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in his book, talking about the Civil Service. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) is critical.
As for provocation, the Post Office management and the UCW have been in negotiation for many months on many of these issues concerning productivity and working methods. Although a good deal of progress has been made, the hands of the UCW negotiators were tied by conference decisions about the extension of productivity agreements corporation-wide and the recruitment of part-time staff. The Post Office had hoped that the special delegate conference in early March would untie the union negotiators' hands, but the knots were firmly retied by very large majorities. In those circumstances, there seemed little point in waiting for the normal conference in May and every reason to press ahead with the introduction of arrangements which will benefit the staff and, above all, those who use the Post Office service. The Post Office is there for the public to use, not for people to play silly games in.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I welcome the news that there has been a return to work, but should not those who went on strike yesterday to preserve inefficient and high-cost services realise that no one is indispensable, as the United States air traffic controllers discovered when President Reagan sacked them? Although we welcome my right hon. Friend's cautious words about the Post Office monopoly and industrial action, as the Government are bent on deregulation is it not time to consider the matter on a long-term basis to see whether there is any justification for the monopoly?

Mr. Tebbit: I think that it is fairly clearly established that the Post Office monopoly of the letter post has benefits as well as disbenefits. If my hon. Friend feels that there are arguments about this as yet unrehearsed I am sure that he will give them a fair airing. Of course, if there are bouts of industrial action in the Post Office the balance will change, perhaps decisively.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: We accept the case for introducing new technology and reducing overtime to achieve flexibility and to spread jobs, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a prolonged industrial dispute would lose all the benefits of those reforms? Does he accept that the key to solving the dispute may lie in assuring Post Office workers that productivity bonuses will go some way to reducing the loss of overtime earnings on a regular basis? Does he also agree that it would be foolish for the Government to convert the dispute into a battleground over the introduction of further privatisation?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. No one who is sensible about these matters would want a dispute in the Post Office. That would damage the Post Office and the prospects for jobs in it. We all expect excessive overtime to be cut back so that more workers can be taken on. That is common sense. There is, of course,

the problem that some workers have become very reliant on long hours of overtime. I emphasise, however, that Sir Ronald Dearing made it plain in a letter distributed to all Members of the House that 55 per cent. of the gains from these changes would fall into the hands of the Post Office workers. That is a fairly generous split.

Mr. Tim Smith: Bearing in the mind the success of private operators in providing a highly efficient letter service at very short notice in the last major Post Office dispute, will my right hon. Friend confirm that if there is a major dispute the monopoly will be lifted immediately, at the beginning of the dispute?

Mr. Tebbit: I think that it is much better not to jump to the conclusion that there will be a major dispute. We should work for a sensible solution. I have made it plain that I entirely stand by the words of my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State which I quoted in my statement. Should there be a dispute which suspends or gravely damages the mail service, I shall make early and quick decisions about the suspension of the monopoly.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State not aware that all that prevented the UCW and the Post Office reaching agreement on Saturday night on the operation of the OCR machine was the fact that in recent days the Post Office has thrown into the discussion the need to employ part-time labour? Will the Secretary of State accept that there is a suspicion now that the Post Office — today, unfortunately, joined by the right hon. Gentleman — is trying to pre-empt the presentation by the executive of my union, the UCW, to the annual conference in Bournemouth in May, of a much more flexible approach?
The relaxation of the monopoly did not operate in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). The cost of delivering a letter by using a private company was 10 times greater than the cost of a postage stamp. After the 1971 dispute ended, hundreds of thousands of letters were found in the possession of private companies and subsequently had to be delivered by the Post Office. I hope that the Secretary of State will not turn a grievance into a full-scale industrial dispute.

Mr. Tebbit: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, who has some connection with the union, should say that the issue of part-time workers was thrown in over the weekend. It has been under negotiation for months and months. Neither the Post Office nor I can stop the executive of the hon. Gentleman's union putting constructive proposals to the conference in May. Indeed, we were overjoyed at the thought that some constructive proposals might result from the conference in March. Some progress was made, but unfortunately not on the important issues of a corporation-wide productivity agreement and part-time staff.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that customers—especially companies that took part in the recently published CBI forecast showing great economic recovery — will be delighted to learn that in the event of serious industrial action this essential national service will be maintained?

Mr. Tebbit: Certainly. If the Post Office will not, or is unable to, deliver the mail, it would be unpardonable for us to permit the service to cease when there are options available to us.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Will the Secretary of State accept that the sensible way of reaching a settlement of the dispute is to permit the chairman of the Post Office and the general secretary of the UCW to get on with the discussions by themselves? Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept that veiled threats of breaking the monopoly do nothing to calm the atmosphere so that the dispute may be settled?

Mr. Tebbit: I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The best thing that we can do is to let the parties negotiate together. However, the hon. Gentleman describes as a veiled threat about the monopoly what he should regard as an assurance given to the consumer.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Would my right hon. Friend accept that the action taken by workers at the Mount Pleasant office was nothing short of industrial sabotage? Will he warn the UCW that unless it co-operates properly and ensures that the post is delivered on time the Post Office's monopoly will be very much in question, and that the Post Office is a natural candidate for privatisation?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend expresses himself somewhat robustly. I am a moderate and quiet chap. I say only that if the Post Office cannot or will not operate the mail service there will be an increasingly strong case for allowing others, who can and will, to do so.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Will the Secretary of State agree that industrial action is in no one's interests, particularly when we remember the damage done by the previous industrial dispute both to the Post Office and to its workers? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the position of Post Office workers will be if the productivity agreement is adopted? Will they be worse off? Will there be any redundancies?

Mr. Tebbit: I understand that Sir Ronald Dearing has assured the union that there is no question of redundancies arising from the agreement. Part-time workers will be taken on at normal rates of pay. They will in this sense be permanent members of staff, not casuals.
It is difficult to say what will happen to each individual's pay. Some Post Office employees currently work very long hours of overtime. I do not know whether in future they will have the opportunity to work quite such long hours of overtime, or whether the extra productivity payments would make up the difference. Those are matters for negotiation, and the parties should be allowed to get on with the negotiations and sort them out.

Mr. Tony Favell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that about half the mail of the firm of solicitors of which I am a partner is delivered through the private enterprise system? We use the private system because it is much cheaper than the public system, and only when mail is delivered by private enterprise can we guarantee that it will reach its destination on the following day.

Mr. Tebbit: I note what my hon. Friend says, as I hope will those concerned in the Post Office. It must have been quite a shock to the Post Office to read the recent report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which could not confidently say that the Post Office letter mail was being operated in the public interest.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This morning I received, unsolicited and unenveloped, a seven-page letter from the chairman of the Post Office explaining his

side of the argument over Mount Pleasant. Did the Secretary of State authorise the distribution of that letter? If so, why did the Post Office not bother to put it in an envelope like every other item of correspondence that hon. Members receive? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that equal facilities are made available to the UCW to write to all hon. Members to explain the union's fears about the method of introduction of new technology, the threat to jobs, and the threat of post office closures implicit in the Government's strategy for the Post Office?

Mr. Tebbit: The ability of the UCW to write to hon. Members could only be threatened if industrial action prevented the mail from being delivered. I am therefore very glad that the industrial action has ended. I am sure that if the UCW wishes to write to hon. Members, the union knows the address and the form. Of course Sir Ronald Dearing did not have to ask my permission to write to hon. Members.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that three hon. Members had risen. I will call those who have consistently been trying to catch my eye.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that so long as he heads the Ministry there is bound to be added anxiety and concern that the Post Office is being encouraged to pursue a policy of confrontation? When will the right hon. Gentleman understand that there is no effective substitute for negotiation between employers and trade unions without coercion?

Mr. Tebbit: For once, there is not much difference between the hon. Gentleman's view and my own. The right way to proceed is to get the parties together and to encourage them to negotiate and reach a constructive agreement that would be to the benefit, above all, of those who use the Post Office.

Mr. Kevin Barron: If the Secretary of State implements his threat of breaking up the Post Office monopoly, can he guarantee to those who use the Post Office that there will be no increase in charges?

Mr. Tebbit: I have made no such threat. I have undertaken to the House that if mail deliveries are suspended I will give careful and early consideration to the means of maintaining the service to the public. That is an assurance to the public. It is a matter between the public and those who would offer the service. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands the real world; he has been in the Labour party for too long.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that the provocative manner in which the board and chairman of the Post Office have closed Crown and sub post offices, particularly in East and West Ham, bodes ill for the negotiations now in train? Will he have a look at the statement that he made concerning the optical machine now operating normally? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the information that I have received, there was an agreement to operate that machine experimentally, which has expired? If that is so, will he make a correction, or let me know if I am wrong?

Mr. Tebbit: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is no. The answer to his second question is that


the machine is operating normally. It operates today in the way that it usually does. The letters go in, are read optically, and come out the other end. As I understand it, that is the normal way of operation.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Is it not hypocritical for the Secretary of State to talk about the reliability of the service and its quality when the Post Office is closing Crown post offices and destroying local services, abrogating local and national agreements, and putting profit before public service? Should not the right hon. Gentleman have announced today that it was the responsibility of the management of the Post Office to return to full consultation and negotiation with the UCW, before — if the angry mood of the Coventry postal workers is any guide—the dispute inevitably spreads?

Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do his best to spread the dispute. But he should consider whether a refusal to operate the machinery effectively represents an ambition to put profit before service to the community. Many people would think so.

Mr. Bob McTaggart: If the Secretary of State is concerned about giving a service to the community and preventing the hardship that is caused to many people through post office closures, will he use his good offices to instruct the Postmaster-General to cease the policy of sub post office closures? That policy is causing great hardship throughout the country.

Mr. Tebbit: The office of Postmaster-General was abolished even before the hon. Gentleman became a Member of Parliament. But the substantive point is that the proposed closures are subject to an extensive process of consultation. Not all the proposed closures are carried through, and I believe that the Post Office adopts an extremely responsible attitude towards its obligations in that respect.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for delaying the House, but many Opposition Members were unable to hear the precise answer that the Secretary of State gave in response to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Islington, North asked whether the Secretary of State had given his permission for the chairman of the Post Office to circulate a letter. The Secretary of State either said he did, or he did not. We were unable to hear his reply. Could the Secretary of State clarify that point?

Mr. Tebbit: It may be for the convenience of the House if I make that point clear. I said that the chairman had no need or requirement to ask me for permission to circulate a letter. I did not give him permission' to circulate. He did it entirely off his own bat.

English Channel (Fixed Link)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I should like to make a statement about the Channel fixed link.
The House will know that in November 1984, I met the French Ministers responsible for transport to discuss the possibility of a fixed link across the English Channel. At that meeting we reaffirmed the willingness of the British and French Governments to take whatever steps might be necessary to facilitate the construction of a fixed link between the United Kingdom and France within the framework of the European transport network. We agreed that this project, for which essential political guarantees would be provided, should be financed without support from public funds or Government guarantees against commercial or technical risks and on the basis of conditions prevailing on the international financial markets.
We also agreed to establish a working group of officials of both Governments to draw up guidelines to potential promoters in order to give them a clear understanding of the requirements of the two Governments on, for example, safety and the environment, the undertakings that the two Governments would be prepared to give, and on any constraints affecting commercial exploitation. At the meeting on 29 November between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the French President, these decisions were confirmed, and it was decided that officials would be instructed to report to Ministers by the end of February.
Officials delivered their report on 28 February, and on 20 March we held a further meeting with the French Ministers to agree the final texts of the guidelines and to decide certain further points. In particular, we agreed that the closing date for proposals would be 31 October 1985, and that the two Governments would aim to reach a decision around the end of the year, on which proposal, if any, they consider should be enabled to go ahead. We also agreed that we should begin contingency work now on those elements of the treaty which would be common to any form of link chosen.
I have placed copies of the guidelines — or, to give them their proper name, the "Invitation to Promoters" — in the Vote Office.
In saying this, I do not want hon. Members to think that we have prejudged the issues. When they have had time to study the guidelines, they will recognise my concern to ensure that there is adequate public consultation, that environmental, social and employment impacts are fully appreciated and that the financial conditions are fully met. All these matters will be carefully considered before the two Governments arrive at a decision.
I cannot yet tell whether a fixed link will be built across the Channel or not. What I can say is that the private sector now has a unique opportunity. We have reached full agreement with the French on the conditions which the promoters must meet. I wish the promoters well in this great endeavour.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: We welcome any suggestion of considerable investment in the infrastructure. Indeed, we have been asking the


Government for many years for precisely this sort of infrastructure development, with its impact on jobs and industry.
Will the Secretary of State give us some undertakings? From a quick examination of the guidelines, it would appear that certain difficulties might arise. Will he give us an assurance that safety will be a paramount consideration in any decisions that are taken? I refer to the safety of those using the Channel now and of those using it during construction.
Whatever decisions are taken, I hope that several important factors will be borne in mind. First, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the environmental impact of any decision on the fixed link will be a paramount consideration? Secondly, what will be the impact on the creation of new jobs—which is mentioned in the guidelines — and of unemployment? In 1980, 9,000 jobs were dependent on ferries at Dover alone. Will any consideration be given to what will happen in the Dover area if investment goes ahead in other regions? What impact will the fixed link have on the regions? What attempts will there be to improve the infrastructure?
We are told that British Rail must be responsible for its commercial investments. Are the Government prepared to consider helping either British Rail or those who will need to support a fixed rail link or road and rail link? Can we be assured that, before any final decision is taken, the House will have a full opportunity to debate every aspect of the project?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady's welcome for this exciting and imaginative project seemed to descend into a lot of detailed points. However, I shall seek to answer them. First, of course, safety will be a paramount concern during the period both of construction and of any link. We shall make it a very important matter to satisfy ourselves that safety considerations have been fully taken into account before any proposal is accepted.
Secondly, any contender will be asked to put forward an environmental impact study of his proposals on the English side. The French will have a different procedure on their side. This will form a very important part of the considerations when deciding which proposal to accept.
Thirdly, traffic across the Channel is likely to double by the year 2000. That will leave room for both a fixed link and a very large ferry industry. It will possibly be as large a ferry industry as it is now, despite the fixed link. However, that will depend upon the capacity of the link, and I cannot forecast what that will be until we receive the offers.
Fourthly, a considerable number of jobs will be created all over the country for fabricating the various parts of the link, whatever the link may be, but the form of link will have to be determined before it is possible to ascertain the full impact on employment throughout the country. As for British Rail, if it is in its interests to make any further investment as a result of any link, it will go through the normal appraisal techniques and, if it is commercially viable, it will be authorised. If it falls below commercial viability, it will be up to the promoters to assist British Rail to top up the funds available to it so that it can make any extra investment show a positive rate of return.
Finally, the guidelines propose that the Government should sponsor a hybrid Bill, which will enable the House to express its views. If the hon. Lady wishes to have a

further opportunity to debate the matter, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Leader of the House will listen to anything that the Opposition may have to say.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will have heard the last comment of the Minister. We shall undoubtedly return to this subject in due course. Therefore, I shall allow questions to continue until 5 o'clock, after which we must move on.

Mr. David Howell: My right hon Friend rightly speaks about a unique opportunity for the private sector, but does he accept that that also creates a dilemma? While the Government may not wish to indicate a preference for any particular form of fixed link until they can be absolutely sure that it can be financed privately, the promoters will have great difficulty in establishing whether it can be financed privately until they are sure what kind of fixed link the Government prefer. Could my right hon. Friend seek to try to break the deadlock by accelerating the Government's indication of what kind of fixed link they would prefer, so that the process can go forward?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his welcome. However, I believe that the promoters are broadly satisfied that they can go ahead and prepare their propositions, including the financial backing that will be needed, and that they have enough time in which to do so before 31 October. That will enable them to assemble their bids, including the financial aspect. It would be quite wrong to preclude any particular type of link or proposition in case we cut out a horse which might turn out to be the fastest horse in the race.

Mr. Bruce Milian: Is the Secretary of State aware that, whether this link is financed by private or public capital, it will nevertheless represent a massive expenditure largely for the benefit of the south-east of England? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, largely for the benefit of the south-east of England. There is already an over-concentration of population and economic activity on the south-east of England. Some Opposition Members are not enthusiastic, to say the least, about the proposal, however it is financed, particularly at a time when the Government are cutting regional aid.

Mr. Ridley: It is possible that a great deal of this capital will be footloose international capital, which may not come to these islands at all if the project does not go ahead. Therefore, I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman should view this project in terms of a denuding of capital which might otherwise be available for other projects. Secondly, I think that the right hon. Gentleman must concede that if there is to be a tunnel underneath the Channel, it has to start from Kent rather than from Glasgow.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Will the criteria used by the Government to judge competing proposals include the rate of return on capital? What guarantee will the Government require from any promoters that they will have the resources to complete the project?

Mr. Ridley: The rate of return on capital will he a matter for the promoters. They will have to demonstrate to their financial backers that they have a viable project. The Government's concern would be to make sure that any


investment in British Rail or in roads showed a positive rate of return, according to normal criteria. We shall also ensure that sufficient bonded guarantees of finance are made available to satisfy the two Governments that adequate finance is available for completion of the project.

Mr. Stephen Ross: We on this Bench welcome the statement by the Secretary of State, which is a change and a pleasure. We believe that this is an imaginative idea and that a link should have been built long ago. Will the Secretary of State confirm that all options are open—rail only, road-rail, bridge and tunnel—and will he please assure the House that once the bids are in there will be no delay on the part of the Government in reaching a decision?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the hon Gentleman and delighted to be in a spirit of accord with him. All options are open — the ones that we know about and the ones that we have not yet heard about — provided that they meet the criteria and come in time. Secondly, the firm intention of the two Governments is to complete their consideration and reach a decision by the end of the year, if possible. The French are as keen as we are to do this.

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkstone and Hythe): Can my right hon. Friend tell the House a little more about the requirement in the guidelines for public consultation? Can he give an assurance that the effects on south-east Kent, in economic as well as in environmental terms, will be fully taken into account before any decision is reached? Can he also describe the machinery that he has in mind for achieving these objectives?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. Paragraph 12.42 of the guidelines sets out all the procedures for parliamentary and public consultation:
the more effective the informal consultation carried out by the promoters with local authorities, expert bodies and other interested parties in advance of the Bill's Committee hearings, the greater the likelihood of a smooth passage for those hearings.
That is the point. If the promoters can ascertain local views and go as far as possible towards meeting them, they will find it much easier to persuade the Committee of this House that the proposals are in order.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Have not the Government's policies created a wide and ever-growing gap between the poorer regions of the north and the south, and have not independent consultants' reports stated quite clearly that the building of a tunnel will put the poorer regions in an even more vulnerable position compared with the richer regions? Have the Government carried out independent inquiries into the effect on the north-east of England of the building of the tunnel? If not, does it not show conclusively that the Government do not give a damn about the massive and ever-growing unemployment in the north-east?

Mr. Ridley: I refute entirely what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Boyes: The right hon. Gentleman cannot do so.

Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the north of England and Scotland have many more estuarial bridges and tunnels than the south of England. All that is happening is that another toll crossing

may be provided across the Channel. The building of the structure, whatever it may be, will create work for the industrial areas of this country. The improvement in our access to and trade with the continent will be of value to the whole country, if it proves to be possible to move goods more cheaply through the link than by ship.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Before we all get trampled over in the enthusiastic rush to abolish the good old English Channel, will my right hon. Friend confirm that his document, "Invitation to Promoters", which sounds suspiciously like a prospectus for a latter-day South Sea Bubble, is a highly speculative, tentative and hypothetical affair? Will he be careful to ensure that the considerable investment now going into the Channel ports in terms of jobs and money will not be placed in jeopardy by the scheme?

Mr. Ridley: It will be for investors, including merchant banks of all sorts, to decide whether they wish to invest in any promoter's scheme and to submit a proposal to the Government for that purpose. It must be for them to make up their own minds whether they want to show the correct amount of money to justify one of the schemes going ahead. It would be wrong of me to give guidance either way.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Minister recognise that not all Scottish opinion will be as insular as that expressed by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), that among the possible beneficiaries of such a scheme would be British Steel's Scottish plants, and that employment in the developing parts of Britain could be greatly assisted by at least one of the projects put forward? Why is the right hon. Gentleman proposing that the scheme should lapse in October?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that there could be large benefits for the steel and other industries located all over Britain and for taking a much more sensible view than the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan).
The date of 31 October is the last date for the receipt of propositions, and all known contenders have so far agreed that that date gives them sufficient time to prepare their offers. If there were any strong plea for a delay to enable somebody else to come in, we would consider that.

Mr. Roger Gale: I welcome my right hon. Friend's insistence that any fixed link should be financed through free enterprise, but will he give the House an undertaking that his Department will make the necessary investment in the infrastructure in north-east Kent before the building of any such link, because without it, far from benefiting, that area is likely to be devastated.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the project. We shall have to consider the implications for Kent's infrastructure. My hon. Friend mentions north-east Kent, but I suspect that south-east Kent will be affected as well. That will be part of the assessment that will have to be made when we receive any particular proposal.

Sir David Price: As a member of the Select Committee which looked at the issue in the previous Parliament, may I ask my right hon. Friend two quick questions? Is he aware that not a single promoter who


appeared before us was willing to put up the money without a basic Government guarantee? Is there to be one? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Good.
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the bridgers, in their evidence to us, were pushing the state of their art far beyond its ability to span the Channel?

Mr. Ridley: I have made it clear in the statement and in the guidelines that there will be no Government guarantees of a financial or economic nature. They will be confined to political guarantees, in the case of cancellation for political reasons, by one or the other Government. That is spelt out in the guidelines.
Secondly, I do not want to comment on any particular scheme, be it bridge, bored tunnel or tube, without seeing the full details of what is finally put forward. I do not want to prejudge the decision in any way.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I welcome the prospect of the promotion of a fixed link across the Channel, but to what physical extent will national law apply each side of the Channel?
Secondly, may I reinforce the wish of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) to see the road and rail infrastructure brought up to a standard commensurate with the Channel tunnel when, as he well knows, in south-east England it is already running far behind current demand?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will find the question of national law dealt with in the guidelines, but we may have to extend other jurisdiction to the centre of the Channel, as he will read. We must see what proposals come forward from the promoters before we can decide what is necessary on infrastructure, but I assure my hon. Friend that that will be taken into account carefully at the time of receiving propositions.

Mr. Den Dover: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that British Rail will be able to sign an arm's-length agreement with the successful promoter and that that will in no way count against any public sector borrowing requirement?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, I can confirm that. British Rail can enter into any agreement that it wishes, but if any investment which it is called upon to finance does not show a positive rate of return, it will be for the promoter to help it with its contribution so that it does show a positive rate of return.

Mr. Toby Jessel: If a Channel link were built, would not our trade pattern become so geared to it and so dependent on it, probably far more than any other country, that we would be vulnerable to a threat of closure at the other end? Can my right hon. Friend be certain that no French Government in the future, perhaps to further their bargaining position on some completely different matter, would ever make such a threat?

Mr. Ridley: We shall be seeking to sign a treaty with the French about that. The predictions seem to be that a sizeable ferry industry will remain, which will provide an alternative method of getting goods and people across the Channel. I believe that the French will wish to sign a treaty with us, which I hope will be an added protection for the real danger which my hon. Friend rightly mentions.

Sir John Osborn: Does not the capacity of the final link have its own environmental,

social and employment implications? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that we have the equipment of Association Trans-Manche, the French agency involved? Will he consider the speeding up of Customs, because whatever link there is will be useless unless we do something on that front as well?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend that the capacity of the link has consequences for the environment as well as for the infrastructure. We are asking the promoters to assess the effects so that we can take them into account in coming to a decision. I agree that Customs are important, and we are already in touch with them to make sure that we can facilitate the passage of goods and people in the quickest way possible.

Mr. Robert Adley: Does my right hon. Friend recall the sad political circumstances which surrounded the fact that the late Mr. Anthony Crosland was obliged to cancel the previous tunnel? Will he please take on board the importance of, as far as possible, getting all-party support for the project, bearing in mind that there are people in all parties who do not want it? In view of the obvious and understandable concern about regional policy, will he please do everything that he can to see that that aspect is high on his list of factors when he comes to make his decision? Finally, what will happen if we want one thing and the French want another?

Mr. Ridley: I have been encouraged by the wide support so far this afternoon for the principle that I have set forth in the statement. That bodes well for the House being prepared to give a good proposal a fair wind. My hon. Friend asks what will happen if there is a difference of opinion between ourselves and the French, but that is a hypothetical question and we must wait and see what develops. However, it is necessary for the French as well as ourselves to agree before anything can go ahead.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Does the Minister expect the promoters to take into account the employment effects either during construction or subsequently in the operation of the fixed link? If not, will the Minister do so?

Mr. Ridley: Yes; the guidelines require the promoters to estimate the employment effects both during and after construction, and they will be a relevant factor in coming to a decision.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend share my amazement that, in the light of their recent statements, the Opposition do not appear to be happy at the prospect of improving the infrastructure? Does he agree that that may be because the Government are insisting on the use of private rather than taxpayers' money to finance this project?

Mr. Ridley: I think that the Opposition are a little uneasy about the fact that it does not cost the taxpayer anything if the project goes ahead, whereas their view often seems to be that the taxpayer must be made to pay more. Therefore, I am sure that my hon. Friends will be delighted if we can have the benefit of this great addition to our infrastructure without great additions to our taxes.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I say that, coming from the north-west, I am fully behind the project. I hope that will please my right hon. Friend. May I remind him that the promoters have already spent many


millions of pounds on putting propositions to the Government, and can I therefore reinforce the request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) that the Government might give some indication before 31 October of the sort of tunnel that they want? That would at least remove the necessity of making expensive proposals which will not even be considered.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend has raised a serious point, and I have considered it carefully. I do not believe that any very expensive work will be necessary for the promoters before 31 October. We have so structured it that, if expensive testing work is necessary, that can be done only after a decision has been taken. Equally, I am sure that he would agree with me that it would be unfair to any group of promoters who wished to put forward a scheme if we were to rule out such a scheme before they had time even to put it forward.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As the unanimous decision of the five banks' review was that there was no way in which this could be financed from private funds without external guarantees, can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that there will be no question of national guarantees by the back door through the EEC? Can he give a clear assurance that, if no proposal comes forward by the end of the year, he will finally bury this silly and outmoded white elephant?

Mr. Ridley: Perhaps the new factor in the situation is that, despite what the banks said in the report, to which my hon. Friend has referred, miraculously they now find that they think they can finance the scheme without access to public funds or public guarantees. It may be that my hon. Friend will see something in that transformation. I am happy to give him the undertaking for which he asks. There will be no EEC funds or guarantees for the link, because that would merely be public money channelled through another route.

BILL PRESENTED

HORSES AND PONIES

Mr. David Amess, supported by Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Greg Knight, and Mr. Gerald Bermingham, presented a Bill to protect horses and ponies against abandonement by their owners; to provide for a statutory code of practice on the tethering of horses and ponies; to oblige owners to arrange for a humane method of identification for their animals; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 April and to be printed. [Bill 118.]

Points of Order

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to put a question which he might, and perhaps will put on another occasion.

Mr. Bruinvels: No, I am not. I wish to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether it is in order for BBC television news to have made an announcement last night prior to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport making his statement about the proposed channel fixed link. Is it in order for such an announcement to be made by the media before it is announced to Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: I have nothing to say about what is transmitted by the media. However, I say again that statements should always be made to the House first.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Rumours are sweeping the media that eight or more Scottish pits are to be closed, including Polkemmet colliery—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know nothing about that either.

Young People (Scotland)

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make increased provision of facilities for, and to extend legal and other rights presently available to young people in Scotland and for connected purposes.
As you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. Members will be aware, this is International Youth Year, and the Bill that I seek leave to introduce today is one of a number of Bills introduced by Liberal Members specifically for International Youth Year. While the Bill specifically relates to young people in Scotland, it has implications for the whole of the United Kingdom.
This Bill and other Bills are necessary if we are to honour our obligations to young people, because young people are particularly badly affected by the difficult times in which we live. Forty per cent. of the unemployed—150,000 people in Scotland—are under the age of 25. The lack of suitable opportunities for young people makes starting out in adult life in 1985 much more difficult than it has been for many decades. For that reason, I believe that we urgently need a Minister with specific responsibility for youth. At the Scottish Office also, we need a Minister with specific responsibility to protect and promote the interests of young people.
I suggest that the first priority is to give young people a guarantee that between the ages of 16 and 19 they will have a job or training leading to the acquisition of appropriate skills or further education. This means that training schemes must be devised to meet real needs. They must be not merely a means of creatively massaging unemployment figures. The financial support for young people continuing in full-time education should be geared in such a way that no young person who is likely to benefit from further training or further education should be denied that opportunity for financial reasons.
The Bill would seek to ensure that young people are properly consulted in the areas of training and education that affect them. They should be represented, for example, on youth training scheme committees, school and college councils, and, indeed, on education committees, and they should be more fully consulted in the running and curriculum development of colleges and universities.
While the first priority is the acquisition of skills leading to employment, which is of major importance, a suitable place in which to live is also crucial to young people starting out in life. Changes in process at the moment—indeed, they are going through the House this week—will cut board and lodging allowances in a way which will have a particularly damaging effect on young people. Variations in accommodation costs fail to take full account of different local circumstances. I believe that this could lead to the break-up of families. It may mean that young people leave home and often will be unable to go back because they are not reconciled with their parents. This will increase the problem of homelessness among young people.
Indeed, I am advised that the stop-over short stay hostel for young people in Edinburgh, ironically enough located in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, is under threat of closure as a direct result of the measure currently going through the House, and initiatives to bring in similar hostels in other parts of Scotland could


now founder. The Bill would seek to ensure that such hostels would be protected from the damaging effect of catch-all changes which, although they may not have been designed deliberately to have that effect, will do so because there is no Minister with specific responsibility for young people.
There is also evidence that these changes could lead directly to the eviction of young people in other kinds of accommodation that they can no longer afford. This is likely to be true particularly in high-priced areas such as Aberdeen, which I represent.
I think that many hon. Members will agree that young couples, particularly those who are unemployed or on low wages, find it difficult to start their lives together when accommodation is inadequate and jobs are scarce. They do not have the means, and the local authorities are unable to provide them with adequate housing.
It is little wonder that there has been a growth in social problems relating to young people. As I am sure all hon. Members are aware, there have been increases in drug and alcohol abuse. In Scotland, an alarming number of suicides and attempted suicides have occurred at Glenochil young offenders institution. While the regime has been cleared by the inspector of prisons, I think it is fair to say that we need to consider whether referring young people to these institutions is correct and whether, in taking some of the initiatives that the Bill would allow, we might have some chance to deal with these problems in a way that would not lead to suicides and suicide attempts.
There are a number of areas, I am proud to say, being a Scottish Member, where we in Scotland are more progressive than are other parts of the United Kingdom. These areas do not exclusively affect young people, though most of them affect them substantially, and I will give some examples.
In recent years the Scottish licensing laws have been liberalised, to general benefit. The effect has been to improve the quality of Scottish pubs and hotels, to reduce the problems of street drunkenness and to provide suitable places where youngsters over the age of 18 can go, rather than, as was the case before, having to hang around street corners or being obliged to drink and then to be turned out on to the streets at 10 o'clock at night.
One of the benefits of the Criminal Justice Act was the banning of alcohol from football grounds, a provision which English Ministers now seem to wish to implement. That measure has reduced hooliganism problems, as have developments such as all-seat, all-covered stands at Aberdeen football club's ground.
The banning of the England-Scotland match at Wembley suggests that the Prime Minister is confusing

Millwall with Hadrian's Wall. Had she really considered what was happening, she would have realised that the problem exists much more in England than in Scotland. That sort of decision could only have been carried out by a Prime Minister who, apart from trips abroad, has left her home counties dugout only once in the last six months, and then only for a day trip to Newcastle.
Children's panels in Scotland have been a successful innovation. They have given young people and their parents support when youngsters have got into trouble. Hon. Members representing English constituencies may wish to see such panels introduced south of the border. The innovation has, however, been partly undermined by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which goes against the spirit of children's panels by suggesting that appearing before a panel constitutes an offence, which is contrary to the spirit of the panel idea.
Representing a constituency in Aberdeenshire, I feel it appropriate, while speaking of areas where we in Scotland are progressive, to refer to the provision of free contraceptive advice clinics, which were pioneered in the city of Aberdeen. The recent ruling of the House of Lords in the Victoria Gillick case does not apply to Scotland, although, regrettably, many young people believe that it does. It is all very well for parents who have a good relationship with their children, as Mrs. Gillick clearly believes she has, but I believe that what has occurred in that respect will be a tragedy for many young people, at least in England and Wales, who do not get on with their parents and who, because of the ruling, will be denied the advice that they need.
My Bill seeks to ensure that the interests of young people in Scotland are not put at risk by any attempt to bring us into line with English rulings. It seeks to create a climate in which the members of older generations accept their responsibility towards young people in terms of giving them the best opportunities. In that area, we are falling down badly. My Bill seeks to do that in a way that shows proper respect for the views of young people, giving them a chance to participate in decisions that affect them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Roy Jenkins and Mr. Robert Maclennan.

YOUNG PEOPLE (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Malcolm Bruce accordingly presented a Bill to make increased provision of facilities for, and to extend legal and other rights presently available to young people in Scotland and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 June and to be printed. [Bill 119.]

Orders of the Day — Interception of Communications Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Clause 1

PROHIBITION ON INTERCEPTION

Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out from 'of' to 'the' in line 12 and insert 'the individual to whom'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means: With this amendment it will be convenient for the Committee to consider the following: Amendment No. 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out from 'or to 'the' in line 12 and insert 'the person to whom'.
Amendment No. 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, after `person', insert 'not being a licensee'.
Amendment No. 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert
'as his residence or principal place of work'.
New clause 4—Interception by person in charge of an institution—
'Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting the interception of a communication by post or a public telecommunication system, where such interception is made or authorised by a person or people in charge of an institution where the recipient of the communication resides, unless authorised to do so under Prison Rules made under the Prison Act 1952, Mental Health Acts or this Act.'.

Mr. Corbett: The purpose of this series of amendments is to make it impossible, in the words of the Bill, for
a person occupying the premises
to give consent for the interception of mail or telephone calls of all tenants or residents or even of some of them. We are told that the Government do not intend that to happen. If so, we welcome that assurance.
It cannot be right for the managers of the Grosvenor, Savoy or Ritz in London, or of the Midland, Albany or Holiday Inn in Birmingham, behind the backs of residents, to okay the interception of mail for transitory guests, all guests or, for that matter, staff. The same goes for the wardens of old people's homes, of controlled schemes or of hostels for the homeless or for landlords of houses in my constituency and elsewhere whose premises are split into bed-sits, or for employers at offices or businesses.
On the basis of clause 1(1)(b), literally millions of people, staying the odd night or residents in those types of premises, could be at risk of having every letter and phone call intercepted—opened, listened to, prised open and snooped over — and that would be part of the process of achieving a big sister state.
We accept, of course, that in cases of suspected terrorism or espionage, or where there is genuine concern over the security of the state, or where it is necessary to detect or prevent a serious crime, interception is a

legitimate tool to use. But that tool should be used only as a last resort against known and named suspects and not as an excuse for a general fishing for information exercise.
It is to protect the rights of the innocent that we move this series of amendments. We hope that the Government will concede that, as drafted, the subsection is too wide, and will acknowledge that the interpretation that I have given of the provision as it stands was not that which was meant when the Bill was drafted.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The purpose of amendment No. 5, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends, is broadly the same as that of amendment No. 4, save that it would apply to corporate persons as well as to individuals. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's view on that.

Mr. John McWilliam: The Clause states in subsection (1)(b):
with the consent of a person occupying the premises to or from which the communication is sent; or".
I have had experience of putting on taps where they have been requested. I have done that when, for instance, people have suffered nuisance telephone calls. Then, with the consent of the individuals concerned, taps have been instituted to enable us quickly to trace the source of the nuisance calls.
The trouble with the clause as drafted is that it goes too wide. I feel sure that the Minister does not intend the provision to be used in the way in which it could be used—to gain the consent of a person occupying premises to institute a tap against a person who might be a sub-tenant of his—but the way in which the subsection is worded would seem to make that possible.
There is good reason for having a subsection such as this, but with the amendment, for that would ensure that people who are subject to the sort of nuisance to which I have referred could permit the authorities to detect the location of the perpetrator of the nuisance.
The amendment would mean that the drafting of clause 1(1)(b), which would make possible a rather broader interpretation, would be less wide. That is the sole point that we wish to make. We want to protect people, but we do not want people to be exploited as they could be under this clause as at present drafted.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I am able to give some words of comfort to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam). The Government have only one aim in preparing the exemptions in clause 1 — to ensure that those who may properly undertake an interception are protected from committing the offence. It is a question of protecting people who behave properly in the course of their legitimate duties. None of the interceptions can take place except in obedience to a warrant. If it strays outside the terms of the warrant or extends after the expiry of the warrant, it is not covered by the exception.
The four amendments all deal with the second exception, which has been included in the Bill to meet the circumstances in which somebody may wish his communications to be intercepted. Every hon. Member in the Committee this afternoon recognises that. A person may, for example, be the recipient of obscene telephone calls. Or, if a member of his family had been kidnapped,


he might wish the police to have access to recordings of all his calls. In principle, the Government believe that there is nothing objectionable in people giving consent to interception of their own communications. The objection here is to the effect of the drafting, whereby a live-in landlord could give consent in respect of a telephone shared by a number of people. That is the point made by all three of the hon. Members who have spoken.
The Government accept that in its present form the exception is cast too wide and we therefore undertake to introduce an amendment to narrow its application. The amendments that have been tabled will not work satisfactorily, however. They fail to meet the requirement to deal with both the post and telecommunications.
It is relatively easy to specify an exception along the lines which have been suggested for the post. Each letter, by its nature, is addressed to only one person and only the addressee would give his consent. But that does not work with telecommunications if people are sharing the same telephone. Until the interception has taken place, it is not possible to know whether it is for the individual concerned or for somebody else. The effect of the amendments, therefore, would be to render criminal the interception of any call on the line in question which was not for the individual who had given his consent. That cannot be right. It would mean, for example, that an offence would be committed if there were interception of a call for a member of a family who through absence from home had been unable to give his consent, although another member of the same family had.
The Government are looking at a means of dealing with the problems which have been identified, although what has been said on the amendments indicates that it is not an entirely straightforward task. However, we have given our commitment and we will find a form of words that deals with what all of us want to deal with — the situation in which a person may give his consent not in his own interest but in order to make trouble for others.

Mr. Corbett: To save me telephoning the Minister, I thank him for what he has just said will be done to meet the problems raised by us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. McWilliam: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, after 'the', insert 'maintenance or'.
I wish first to remedy a fault which I committed in speaking to the last amendments and declare my interest as a sponsored member of the National Communications Union, engineering section—a statement which applies throughout the proceedings on this Bill.
The problem that I find with clause 1(1)(c) is that it deals merely with the provision of postal or public telecommunication services, and there are many possible interpretations of "provision". It might mean provision pure and simple; it might mean continuing provision. I am not certain.
My intention in seeking to insert words in this clause is to protect those of my former colleagues who have to intercept a communication in order to determine the quality of service that is being given or whether faults are occurring. This is not all that straightforward in these days of advanced switching and telecommunications systems.

A fault on a telephone or a line can cause problems 100, 200 or 300 miles away. The only way that these faults can be located during the maintenance of the service is by intercepting the communication and trying to trace where the fault is occurring or, having found it, trying to trace back and find where the condition is occurring on the line which is causing the fault. This is a matter not of providing service but of maintaining the standard of service.
I must stress that although, during these processes, there is interception, what is being said on the circuit is not being taken in by the men carrying out the interception. They are checking the continuity to see that speech is present. They are not attempting to make head or tail of what is being said. In these operations it is necessary to ascertain that speech is taking place. I have had a lot of experience in this and I could never remember, 10 seconds after an interception, what had been said. I was not interested in it, and my colleagues are not interested in it — unless, of course, somebody says something incredibly interesting, in which case one pricks one's ears. It is like a half-heard conversation on a bus.
The offence in such cases ought to be the communication of such information to a third party. I cannot think of any instance in the more than 20 years during which I was a telephone engineer of anybody getting into trouble for communicating snatches of conversation which they heard in such circumstances. We hear those snatches of conversation and forget about them immediately. This is not to say that telephone engineers are angels, but they are far too busy to be bothered with the problems of other individuals, and that is not the intention of the interception.
We wish it to be made clear beyond peradventure that the kind of work that needs to be done to maintain the quality of service and to trace back difficult faults can be done without the engineer's being in any danger of the law. That is the sole purpose of the amendment and we hope that the Minister will accept it.

Mr. Waddington: It is quite clear from what the hon. Gentleman has said that he accepts how important it is to have this exemption. For example, a member of the staff of BT may, from time to time, need to do something that would amount to interception, although it would not usually be seen as such. If an engineer is attending to a line, he may discover the nature of a fault or whether it has been rectified only by listening in momentarily. It is an accepted practice that if a line has been engaged for a long period a caller may ask the operator to check whether the line is really engaged or whether it is faulty.
The question is simply whether clause 1(1)(c) adequately meets the position, and I believe that there is no doubt that it does. The term "provision" covers both the initial installation of a service and its continued operation — be that in its maintenance or repair or in other respects such as through the facilities offered by telephone operators.

Mr. McWilliam: I have studied the clause but have failed to find a definition of the word "provision". That is the problem. We tabled the amendment to make matters clear beyond peradventure and to rectify the absence of a definition.

Mr. Waddington: I assure the hon. Gentleman that one could not continue to provide a postal or


telecommunications service unless it was maintained in a state that allowed such a provision. That is why we have no doubt that it would not add anything to the clause to insert the words in the amendment. Indeed, the introduction of the word "maintenance" could cause doubt in drafting terms on the scope of provision and may, therefore, have the effect not of clarifying the position but of excluding certain necessary elements.
On telecommunications, the narrower meaning of "provision" that would be implicit in the amended version might cast doubts on whether operator services were included, as they certainly must be.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What are the necessary elements that would be excluded?

Mr. Waddington: If we add the word "maintenance", that obviously casts doubt on what is meant by "provision". Adding that word would suggest that the provision in the Bill did not mean what everybody would normally expect it to mean. The word "provision" must include maintenance in ordinary parlance for the reasons that I have already given. Therefore, a parliamentary draftsman would say that adding the word "maintenance" would cast doubts on the true meaning of the word "provision".
That is why we say with complete confidence that, although we are grateful to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) for raising these important matters, I can assure him absolutely that he will not improve the protection for those who work for BT by pressing the amendment. In those circumstances, I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. McWilliam: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
The Bill makes it an offence to tap telephones or to intercept mail unless certain conditions specified in the Bill have been met. Anyone caught intercepting telephone communications or mail without having satisfied those conditions has committed an offence and can be fined and/or imprisoned. That, as far as it goes, is acceptable.
However, the Bill then provides that a prosecution can be mounted only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales or the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. We cannot accept that, and certainly not in the absence of substantial reasons in defence of it, which presumably the Minister has at his disposal.
We cannot accept that position because the person who has been offended against — who has had his privacy invaded either by his telephone calls being intercepted and listened to or by his mail being intercepted and opened—must be able to take action on his own account. He must be able to seek redress for the offence that has been committed against him. If that individual feels aggrieved, affronted, slighted or damaged, he must be able to initiate his own course of action to gain justice.
Indeed, I should have thought that it was a fundamental principle of any criminal justice system that those who have been the victims of offences must be able to have

access to the courts to remedy their grievances, even if the remedy is no more than a criminal prosecution and the consequence a fine or imprisonment.
Where an offence has been committed against an individual citizen, it is sensible that that individual should be able to initiate action against those who have committed the offence. Clearly if he is precluded—as he is by the Bill — from taking that action, he will not only feel extremely annoyed and frustrated but will suffer a substantial loss of confidence in the criminal justice system. That is not an unimportant matter, and I hope that the Minister will take it on board.
None of us wants anyone to be precluded from access to the courts, and none of us wants the results of any such preclusion to be an individual finding that he no longer has any confidence in the criminal justice system.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and it is important that the aggrieved citizen should have redress to the courts. But does he not think that he is going about it in the wrong way and that the effective remedy is through the civil courts? Is it not important to have a filter, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, to avoid vexatious or frivolous prosecutions?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but I do not agree with him. A remedy in the civil courts may be possible and the hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to table an amendment that would provide for that. However, a remedy is already provided in clause 7 of the Bill where aggrieved individuals have access to a tribunal. Clause 7(5) lays down the powers of the tribunal and states:
direct the Secretary of State to pay to the applicant such sum by way of compensation as may be specified in the order.
Therefore, the principle is accepted.
The Opposition believe that where an offence has been committed against an individual citizen, he should have the right of private prosecution in the criminal court.
The hon. and learned Gentleman reminds me of the deficiencies of the tribunal. Not only are there limitations on the tribunal's purview, but there are defects in the remedies that it can propose. An applicant can apply to the tribunal alleging a contravention of the rules set out in the Bill. The tribunal, on investigation, may find that there had been a contravention — that a surveillance tap was not authorised or was improperly authorized—but need take no further action. The tribunal can ask the Secretary of State to pay damages, quash the warrant and notify the applicant, but none of those actions has to be taken. In such circumstances, a citizen will be even further aggrieved if he is told by the tribunal that an offence has been committed but that no action is proposed. That is an additional reason why a citizen should be able to take action on his own account.
A further reason exists. One cannot always rely on the Director of Public Prosecutions. I do not wish to cast aspersions upon that post, or upon the individual who occupies it. I know and respect him. However, the DPP often takes a long time to reach a decision which is unacceptable to a person whose privacy has been invaded. In addition, the DPP will not give reasons for his decision. Hon. Members will remember that that was one of the causes of dissatisfaction during the inquiry into deaths in custody. The controversy was not about the DPP making the wrong decision, but because he did not give the reasons


for his decision. The DPP does not explain the factors that he has taken into account before coming to a decision. When the DPP decides against a prosecution, the suspicion is that he may have been subjected to political pressure or that there is more to the issue than appears on the surface.
We are proposing no more than a mechanism to give proper rights to the individual which will also take the DPP out of the realm of potential controversy. We want to remove all doubt and suspicion from the DPP and to allow the individual to take action on his own account. There are no good reasons for not approving the amendment. We do not accept the suggestion that the amendment will result in a multiplicity of vexatious cases. A small number of justifiable cases will arise and the amendment will ensure a proper regard for and confidence in our criminal justice system.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), all too characteristically, said that he had absolute confidence in the Director of Public Prosecutions, both in his office and his person. I agree with him. However, the hon. Gentleman said that suspicions were aroused by delays. If he believes, as I do, that the director is beyond suspicion, his duty is to reject those suspicions, not to give currency to them. I hope that the Government will resist the amendment.

Mr. Waddington: A number of criteria determine whether it is appropriate to have a DPP consent provision, inluding the need to ensure consistency in bringing prosecutions and to secure the possibility of giving due weight to considerations of public policy. It might also be essential, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, to ensure that the law is not abused through vexatious or inappropriate private prosecutions.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) was taken to task by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I shall not get involved in that matter, but the Government do not accept the suggestion that the Director of Public Prosecutions would act otherwise than in strict accordance with his public responsibilities when determining whether a prosecution should be brought under the Bill.
There is nothing unusual in the provision. Director of Public Prosecution consent provisions apply in no less than 70 offences in English law. There can be no ground for arguing that the prosecuting authorities would be remiss or negligent in bringing prosecutions for unlawful interception when, in the light of the information available, it is appropriate to do so.
It has never been demonstrated that anything other than the highest standards of probity have been applied by successive directors. There are no grounds for arguing that those standards will be relaxed.
Special considerations undoubtedly apply to the interception offence, not because of the formulation of the offence itself, but because of the nature of the system of authorised interception. The Government have never tried to disguise that. These considerations are reflected in the special, but undeniably essential, arrangements for the secret proceedings of the tribunal. A person must not be

able to discover whether he has been the subject of a warrant, or if he has, the ground on which it was issued, simply by making an application to the tribunal. It is also essential that it should not be possible to mount a civil action against the Secretary of State for the alleged wrongful issue of a warrant in a manner which would enable someone to discover such facts without having to go the tribunal. They are justifications for the existence of the tribunal. It is obvious that we cannot have a system under which a person cannot find out what he wants from a tribunal, but can discover the information through another route.
The same considerations apply to prosecutions. The purpose and value of authorised interception would be seriously undermined to the point of absurdity and genuine harm to the necessary purposes of interception if the people against whom warrants might be directed were able to discover the particular and general use of authorised interception by mounting private prosecutions. Because a warrant is a necessary defence to the clause 1 offence, there can be no general prohibition on reference to warrants in proceedings for that offence. That is the reason for the provision in clause 9(4).
It would be ridiculous if, having established the special arrangements for the tribunal and jurisdiction over the Secretary of State's decisions, the arrangements could be circumvented by the mounting of private prosecutions. Important considerations of public policy are involved which can be met only by ensuring in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, as invariably in Scotland, that there no private prosecutions. The DPP consent provision is essential if the purpose of the legislation as a whole is not to be weakened or even ultimately undermined. I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

WARRANTS FOR INTERCEPTION

Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'issue a' and insert
'apply to a judge of the High Court for'.

The Chairman: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 11, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'requiring' and insert 'permitting'.
No. 131, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'requiring', and insert—
'.—(2) A warrant under this section may require'.
No. 13, in page 2, line 17, leave out 'issue' and insert 'apply for'.
No. 132, in page 2, line 18, after 'is', insert 'urgent and'.
No. 133, in page 2, line 27, at end insert—
'(3A) A Judge of the High Court may, on the application of the Secretary of State issue a warrant if he considers it necessary for the purpose of preventing and detecting serious crime.
(3B) The Board may on the application of the Secretary of State issue a warrant if it considers it necessary:

(a) in the interests of national security; or
(b) for the purpose of safeguarding the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom.'.


No. 20, in page 2, line 29, at end add—
'(5) A warrant shall not be issued unless a High Court judge is satisfied that the warrant is necessary on the grounds set out in (2)(a), (b) and (c) above.'.
No. 134, in clause 4, page 3, leave out line 32.
No. 27, in page 3, line 32, leave out 'issued' and insert 'applied for'.
No. 135, in page 3, line 33, leave out '(a)' and insert
'An application for a warrant shall not be made except'.
No. 136, in page 3, line 33, leave out from '; or' to end of line 37.
No. 32, in page 3, line 36, leave out 'issue' and insert 'apply for'.
No. 33, in page 3, line 37, at end insert—
'(1A) A warrant shall not be issued on the grounds set out in section 2(2)(b) above except by order of a judge of the High Court.'.
No. 34, in page 3, line 41, after 'period', insert 'apply to'.
No. 138, in page 4, line 4, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) A warrant shall not be renewed except by—

(a) a Judge of the High Court on the grounds set out in 2(5) above;
(b) the Board on the grounds set out in 2(6) above.'.


No. 37, in page 4, line 4, leave out
'an instrument under the hand of'
and insert
'by order of a judge of the High Court upon application by'.
No. 139, in page 4, leave out lines 7 to 13 and add—

'(a) in relation to a warrant issued by the Secretary of State the period of six hours beginning from the time when it was issued.
(b) in relation to a warrant issued by a Judge of the High Court the period of three months beginning with the day it was last issued or renewed.
(c) in relation to a warrant issued by the Board the period of three months beginning with the day it was last issued or renewed.'.

No. 40, in clause 5, page 4, line 15, at beginning insert
'apply to a judge to'.
No. 42, in page 4, line 18, at beginning insert
'apply to a judge of the High Court to'.
No. 44, in page 4, line 31, leave out from 'by' to end of line 37 and insert
'order of a judge of the High Court'.
No. 48, in clause 6, page 5, line 1, leave out
'the Secretary of State issues a warrant he'
and insert
'a warrant has been issued by a High Court judge the Secretary of State'.
New clause 8—Functions of the Board—

'(1) Her Majesty may by letters patent appoint a Board of five members of Her Majesty's Privy Council which power shall be exercisable on an address presented by the House of Commons and no motion shall be made for such an address except by the Prime Minister.
(2) The Board will carry out the functions assigned to it under section 2 and 4 of this Act.
(3) As soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year the Board shall make a report to the House of Commons with respect to it carrying out its functions under this Act.'.

Mr. Carlile: This debate is about the issue of warrants and whether they should require prior approval. Two alternatives are presented in my amendments and the other amendments. Prior judicial approval for the issue of warrants is required under those amendments; and in new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris), a board of Privy Councillors is suggested.
The Times diary has given us a day-by-day account of what goes on in a Select Committee. A Select Committee of the present type could not be expected realistically to carry out the role of prior scrutiny. However, a different view could be taken of a board of five members of Her Majesty's Privy Council who, ex hypothesi, do and would

keep secrets. Indeed, I feel sure that it is not one of Her Majesty's Privy Councillors who has been leaking information to the Times diary.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman want to bet?

Mr. Carlile: The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), from a sedentary position, is offering me a financial bet on that proposition. I shall have a word with him afterwards, because I am sure that if a bet is struck I shall win it.
The idea of judicial authority has not been plucked out of the air by myself, my right hon. and hon. Friends or others who support the view that there should be prior judicial authority. The Royal Commission on criminal procedure was of the opinion that there should be prior judicial authority before the issuing of a warrant. I am surprised that that recommendation has not found favour with the Government, unless they are about to change their mind, which I suspect is not the case.
I am surprised especially that the royal commission's recommendations have not been taken up by the Government, because they were drawn in extremely persuasive terms. I shall not weary the Committee by going through those terms as the arguments are well known by the few right hon. and hon. Members who are in the Chamber. The Bill has rightly been sent to a Committee of the whole House because of the importance of the matters which come within its compass. However, and ironically, I suspect that if it were being considered by a Standing Committee in a Committee Room there would be far more right hon. and hon. Members present than there are now in the Chamber. It does little credit to the House of Commons that so few Members are present to deal with matters of such importance.
I do not rely for my argument in favour of prior .judicial authority solely upon the Royal Commission on criminal procedure. Throughout the world—this is not confined to Europe — there are examples of the use of prior judicial approval. It is used in Canada, for example, and in Denmark, where the decision is taken by a competent judicial authority. The procedure is used in Sweden, in Spain and in Switzerland. In Switzerland, the investigating judge must submit a copy of his decision with a case file and an explanatory note to the President of Indictments. If the President decides that the judge has overstepped the limits, he will revoke the order, and the revocation will stand.
The procedure of prior judicial approval is used also in Italy, where a warrant may be issued by a public prosecutor in the place where the offence has been committed, or by an investigating judge. I am not terribly enthusiastic about issue by a public prosecutor, but the Italians have a well developed judicial system. As we know from today's tragedy in Sicily, Italian judges take as fiercely independent a position as our own judges are accustomed to taking.
In Austria, there is a well developed and tried system from which we could learn a great deal. There tapping has to be approved by a college of three judges, which authorises the warrant and supervises the investigation. That system works perfectly well in Austria. There is no reason why something similar should not be adopted here.
It was made clear by myself and many others on Second Reading—by definition, our arguments were apparently


accepted because we are debating the Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House—that the Bill codifies—for which we are grateful — a severe intrusion into private property, private life and the private conversations and communications of the private citizen. It is vital that we give the best possible protection to the private citizen against the unjustified issue of a warrant, while of course bearing in mind that there are cases where a warrant of this sort must be issued in the public interest.
There are those who take the view — I believe that the Labour party does—that judges are not responsible enough, capable enough or even intelligent enough to be able to consider the issues which would be placed before them on an application for the issue of a warrant. However, we are not asking for the application to take place before a lay magistrate, or a stipendary magistrate, or even a circuit judge; we are saying that a High Court judge, one of the 70 or so most experienced judges in England — Liberals would seek to introduce a similar provision for Scotland and I confess that I overlooked the different terminology that would be required in drafting amendments Nos. 10 and 11 to make them apply to Scotland as well—should be asked to consider whether a warrant should be issued.
High Court judges are accustomed day by day to dealing with extremely complicated urgent ex parte applications and to sifting most complex and difficult facts. They deal with issues of public policy which may be of the most sensitive nature — for example, many such decisions were required of judges during the miners' strike. The proper protection of the citizen would be met by requiring the authority seeking the warrant to go before a High Court judge, to submit itself to a proper procedure and to apply to the judge for the warrant.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not ignoring the distinction, both in theory and in practice, between a judicial act and an executive act? Judges are extremely well versed in judicial acts; but the considerations involved in an executive act are often different and are matters to which they are not accustomed.

Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman has assisted me in highlighting the reasons why the amendments have been tabled. I recognise that what is provided for at present is an executive act. I believe that it should cease to be wholly an executive act. The executive act should be the decision that one should apply for a warrant. There should then follow a specific judicial act. I note that the Minister is casting admiring glances at the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) as thanks for later argument. It is desirable and necessary that we should introduce a judicial level of inquiry — the judicial filter — before such warrants are issued. I hope, although I am not confident, that the Government will accept the view which I have expressed and will recognise that we should follow the example of our friends and some of our neighbours abroad and introduce the concept for which I am arguing.

6 pm

Mr. Steve Norris: In discussing this group of amendments, we are considering the most important issue in the Bill — who is to judge the suitability of a warrant to intrude upon a fundamental civil

liberty of the citizen, to subject that citizen to the type of control by the state which, under any circumstances other than those outlined in the Bill, would be intolerable. A warrant may be considered necessary in relation to serious crime, national security or — this is another dubious category—the state's economic well-being.
Given that we must decide who shall judge, we must face the fact that the Government insist that it is the Home Secretary alone who shall act, not just as judge but as judge and jury, in his application to carry out his executive action. This is despite the fact, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) pointed out, that the royal commission specifically recommended an independent judicial review process. The Bill does not refer to the alternatives that are available to us and that are entirely safe in the context of the requirements of national security. As far as I know, no hon. Member would seek to diminish those requirements or to suggest that they are irrelevant. We have the option of allowing judges the power to provide an overview of an executive application made by the Home Secretary. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was correct in his response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg).
While we are happy to allow judges to decide, in similar circumstances, whether to issue a warrant to search an individual's premises or to issue a care order, we are not prepared to do so when an application is made for a warrant to carry out interception. That is odd, especially as one of the main justifications for interception is suspicion that a serious crime will be prevented or detected. That is an unreasonable distinction, because we have already given judges this power in other circumstances. I do not know whether the interception of a person's communications is regarded as a greater invasion of privacy than a search of a person's home. I should have thought that both were equally important and serious steps that should not be taken without proper supervision. For many years we have been prepared to allow judges to authorise the issue of search warrants, so surely the same procedure could apply to warrants for interception.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the difference between warrants to search a house and warrants to intercept communications? Although the need to uphold the law may require interception in a home, in the case of interception of communications we are speaking about reasons of state. There is a difference between asking a judge to consider whether the law would be assisted by interception in a home and asking him to consider the matter for reasons of state of the type set out in clause 2.

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that I should have better ordered my argument if I had started by reminding hon. Members that there are three classifications that must be considered in applying for a warrant to intercept—suspicion of serious crime, the security of the state and the economic well-being of the state. I apologise to the Committee for not making that point clear. My point about the right of judges to issue warrants was confined to consideration of serious crime. As evidenced by my having tabled new clause 8, I have other ideas on national security which the Committee should discuss.
We are happy to say that judges should have the right to decide whether the police are acting properly in seeking to infringe a person's fundamental civil liberty by entering his home against his will; yet the Bill says that judges should not have the right to supervise the potentially equal infringement of a civil right in relation to interception of communications.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Not by the police.

Mr. Norris: As my hon. Friend observes, not by the police. Judges should decide whether a proper case has been made out in an application for a warrent to intercept, to detect or prevent a serious crime. We must consider equally the applications for warrants in matters of national security and economic well-being. The Opposition suggest that the appropriate mechanism should be an application by the Home Secretary to a Select Committee. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery observes, Select Committees are, regrettably, not noted for their own security, as any reader of the Times diary could confirm. However high one's opinion of one's colleagues might be, to suggest that a Select Committee, chosen from among all hon. Members, is the appropriate body to consider the serious and confidential applications that are likely to be made under this procedure is naive. Such a procedure is not viable in any way.
I sympathise with the Opposition's desire to ensure that such applications are ultimately within the purview of Parliament and that there is a degree of accountability to Parliament for the actions of the security services and the directions of the Home Secretary, but I suggest that there are alternative ways of achieving that end.
The Germans specifically recognise the distinction between serious crime and national security, and in the case of serious crime, applications for warrants are made to a judge. My right and learned Friend the Home Secretary put it to me that judges in Europe generally have a more investigative role than judges in Britain. My hon. and learned Friend gave that as a reason for distinguishing between the suitability of British and German judges to authorise search warrants. That is not a valid reason. The existence of a procedure to issue search warrants, care orders and so on shows that judges are capable of making decisions about serious crime.
In the case of national security, in Germany the appropriate Minister vets an application, ensures that it is suitable and then submits it to a committee of the German Parliament. I suggest that a board of five of Her Majesty's senior Privy Councillors is the appropriate mechanism to consider applications. Such persons should not be active on the Front Bench of either party, but would still be Members. If I may be allowed to pay him tribute, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), whose integrity in such matters is unquestioned, would be one of those able to bring to the board the appropriate experience and judgment that clearly would be prerequisites of members of the board.
A committee comprising senior Privy Councillors, who are above the daily hurly-burly of political life in the House, would be able to consider applications made to them by the Home Secretary and to approve or disapprove of them, depending on their suitability. Such a board needs to be accountable. I have suggested in new clause 8 that the board should report to Parliament as soon as is convenient after the end of each year, outlining those parts

of its work that can be outlined and that would not compromise the integrity of the security services. I do not seek by that mechanism to diminish the Home Secretary's role or, it goes without saying, to cast any doubt upon my right hon. and learned Friend's integrity, or at any point to disagree with his assertion that he has, as his predecessors will have done, always taken a considerable amount of trouble to ensure that applications, when approved, are approved only on the highest possible criteria.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee do not want to see the operation of the security services opened up so that they are no longer effective, or spread out to the public view so that their ability to act is compromised, but want them to be brought clearly and unequivocally within the purview and remit of Parliament. The mechanism that I propose covers that circumstance and would be an effective method of ensuring that we had genuine accountability to Parliament in these important matters.
I trust that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will allude to that proposition in his reply, because it is the most crucial part of the Bill.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No one doubts that this is a crucial part of the Bill and of our practice, because when we talk about national security we are speaking about the risk of treason, espionage and grievous terrorism. A heavy responsibility must be discharged by anyone who causes a warrant to be issued to tap telephones or to intercept mail, but it is done for equally serious reasons — to safeguard the public interest and the security of the realm.
The debate is about who should legitimate the Secretary of State's exercise of his prerogative. I may disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), but I believe that only the House can legitimate the proper action of the Secretary of State. So long as the Home Secretary has the trust of the House, that is as far as it needs or ought to go.
I shall deal with the first point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, who always speaks eloquently and mellifluously. I accept that judges make a number of decisions that affect the issue of warrants for the police; but so do magistrates. While judges may know a great deal about the law, I do not believe that they can take the kind of decisions that apply where urgent matters touching upon espionage, terrorism, mutiny or treason are involved. I do not believe that that is within their working competence.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why he considers that judges are incapable of taking urgent decisions on important and difficult matters? Is he aware that almost every night of the week a judge somewhere, often in his home or at the judge's lodgings, has to take that type of decision?

Mr. Griffiths: I did not say that judges were incapable of taking difficult decisions. That is what they are judges for. In an issue touching upon the security of the state—the public safety—one should look to Her Majesty's Ministers who, for the time being, have the confidence of the House. They must take that decision. Her Majesty's Ministers must decide whether our soldiers, sailors and airmen go to war. The same Ministers must decide whether


there is a tangible risk to the security of the state. That is my judgment and what I offer. I am not persuaded that a decision by the judges would be the right approach.
Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East has suggested a group of Privy Councillors. We all know Privy Councillors. I have the greatest respect for most of them. [Interruption.] I know that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), who was Prime Minister for a number of years, will understand when I say with the greatest affection to the personality involved that I read the memoirs of a Privy Councillor, Mr. Richard Crossman, with the greatest interest. I suspect that when he was writing those diaries and was a senior member of the Privy Council and of the Government he was perhaps acting in a way that my hon. Friend would think was not entirely appropriate for the five-man Privy Council. The Secretary of State cannot, as it were, put into commission his exercise of the proper powers of prerogative that must belong with Her Majesty's Ministers responsible directly to the House.

Mr. Norris: I presume that my hon. Friend is arguing that clause 2(2)(a),
in the interests of national security",
should be dealt with by the Home Secretary alone. That is an argument that can be advanced. My hon. Friend will not find me defending the posthumous reputation of Richard Crossman. If my hon. Friend had listened carefully to what I said, he would have understood that I was not suggesting that people who were active should be involved. I believe that my hon. Friend is confirming what I said about clause 2(2)(b):
for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime".
The idea that only the Home Secretary is capable of making decisions in respect of warrants
for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime
when judges do it every day in respect of search warrants surely is nonsense.

Mr. Griffiths: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to say that I am probably as familiar with the police seeking and obtaining warrants from magistrates and judges as anyone in the House. However, we are not talking about that; we are talking about where the security of the state — public safety in the broadest and highest sense of the word—is at risk. I have said before, and I have to say it now, that whether we like it or not we are driven to trust the Home Secretary. I have trusted Labour and Conservative Home Secretaries. Although it sounds simple to say that, I believe that it is the proper constitutional, and by far the most expedient and practical, position to be in.
Issues of speed can militate against judicial arrangements and Privy Councillors. There is the issue of the "need to know". How widely these matters must be spread before authorisation is an important point. Issues would arise as to how for judges would require sources of information to be revealed to them before they decided. The same would apply to Privy Councillors. The House must face the dilemma. Let us suppose that a judicial review by five Privy Councillors were to reverse the Home Secretary's request and say that he could not have the warrant. What, then, is the Home Secretary's position? In my judgment, he would have no choice but to resign

because he would, as a Minister of the Crown charged with the public safety, have formed a judgment. Ministers have to decide whether our soldiers, sailors and airmen can be committed to war. They can be involved in places such as Northern Ireland with the most difficult, sensitive and in every way demanding decisions. The reverse of that is that they must be equally capable and willing to take decisions that affect the defence of the state against treason and espionage.
If the Home Secretary of the day, on the advice that was available to him from the security services and others, had come to the conclusion that public safety, the national interest and the security of the state required that an interception warrant be issued, and then a group of judges or a group of Privy Councillors were to reverse that decision without having access to all the information on which the Secretary of State had formed his judgment, would not the position of the Secretary of State become impossible? He would have to resign. We should not have any longer the prerogative—and it is a prerogative—of Her Majesty's Ministers being able to determine, while they are in office, the security of the state. In fact, their high office would be put into commission. That is not practicable. So long as the Home Secretary bears the responsibility, he must be given the trust of the House in carrying it out.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: There is a distinction to be drawn between the national defence and economic well-being argument and the argument about
for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime".
With regard to the interests of national security and economic well-being, it is utterly inappropriate to leave the matter to judges because it is essentially and necessarily an Executive action. If there has been an abuse of the Executive power, there should be a review, and it is at that stage that the judicial intervention takes place, although it is perfectly true that judicial intervention in this instance takes the form of a tribunal. On the two major categories of national security and economic well-being, there is a major distinction between the executive role of Government, who are responsible for doing the executive act, and the judicial role, which is, if necessary, to provide a remedy if the executive act has been outside the statutory powers. I entirely disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) when he seeks to confuse the two.
There are pragmatic arguments as well. I shall mention three. First, what about appeals? If a judge refuses the Home Secretary's application, does the matter go to appeal? If it does, does it go to the Court of Appeal, and what sort of publicity will be given to that, if any? If it cannot go to appeal, is a single judge to be able to frustrate the Home Secretary's application based on grounds of national security? Frankly, I find that concept utterly preposterous.
Secondly, there is the matter of speed. I can conceive of quite a few cases in which expedition is of the essence. If the Home Secretary has to make a detailed application, set out his grounds, accumulate the evidence and no doubt instruct counsel, it will take a long time. Counsel might be the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery or even myself. I am not one to refuse briefs of that kind or of any kind. I am not proud. [Interruption.] I shall represent my


hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). However, if the Home Secretary has to do that, a great deal of time may pass.
The third point is consistency. The plain fact is that judges are not wholly consistent among themselves. We need consistency in approach. We shall not get that from a bench of judges, especially when it comprises people such as Lord Denning.
Passing from those considerations, I refer now to others of serious crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) has a point about paragraph (b). There is no particular reason why judges should not be able to do what my hon. Friend is suggesting they should do. It is possible, and I have no great objections to the principle. However, I do not believe that any benefit will be derived from the process. The difficulties are essentially pragmatic ones of consistency and expedition. I doubt that the judgments will be entirely consistent, and I believe that they would be more lengthy in the obtaining.
The mischief that my hon. Friend is seeking to gainsay is largely cured by the review mechanism provided for under the Bill. Therefore, I see no great advantage. The possible difficulties are taken into account through the review procedure. Therefore, I would not support my hon. Friend, but he has a point.

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend mentioned the principles of consistency and expedition in relation to the review by the Home Secretary. Does he agree that those same principles of consistency and expedition apply equally to search warrants? In that case, it has been accepted for a considerable time that judicial involvement is perfectly reasonable. Does not my hon. Friend think that the same applies in this case?

Mr. Hogg: Those things do not march exactly together. To start with, search warrants are common—and have to be—and arise in many thousands of cases, whereas in the case of paragraph (b), on serious crime, the number of warrants issued each year is but a few hundred.
I come back to the point that there are some pragmatic objections to be raised. The present procedure is not a serious mischief, and the review procedure will take into account such mischief as may arise, so I see no great merit in what my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Having listened to what has been said, I believe that the suggestion that the matter could be dealt with by a High Court judge is impractical and unsuitable. There is no clear analogy between the granting of a search warrant, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) says, is a common everyday occurrence, and the granting of the Home Secretary's approval for interception.
It is also important that the applications should themselves be dealt with in total security. As a junior Minister in the Home Office for four years, I never saw a single application for a warrant for telephone tapping because applications go directly to the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary alone. If someone else is involved, inevitably there is a greater danger that the knowledge about the application being made will get out. When one is dealing with national security, one does not want to know that the person whose telephone one wishes to intercept is indeed having his telephone intercepted.
In the end, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, it comes down to trusting

the Home Secretary. I am happy to say that, certainly in the years that I have been in the House, I have had complete confidence in leaving that decision in the hands of the Home Secretary of the day, irrespective of the party to which he belongs. There is no other way to deal with the matter. If we try to turn it over to the judges, there will be arguments about lack of accountability. It is a matter of whether one trusts the Home Secretary with that power. I believe that one should and that we have been well served by those who have had it to date.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The Labour party has no problem about supporting the series of amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), which lay down more stringent conditions to be satisfied before warrants are issued. Like him, we regard safeguards as necessary and important, and we want those safeguards to be as stringent and effective as possible. We want warrants to be issued only when they are absolutely necessary.
Unfortunately, we cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in his desire to substitute a judge for the Home Secretary in issuing warrants. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) favours a committee of Privy Councillors which we cannot accept either. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) also mentioned this matter. We are now discussing perhaps the most crucial area of the Bill, which is about the question: who guards the guards? Who is responsible and under what conditions? What degree of political accountability is there for issuing warrants?
There is no dissent by any party on either side of the Committee from our objective of obtaining proper accountability and responsibility. We all want to ensure that there is a proper balance between the needs of accountability and of public interest in these matters. A fine line has to be drawn between the one and the other. There is no hard and fast argument for any one of the propositions that we are now debating, but after a great deal of consideration it seems to us inappropriate to vest such responsibility either in a High Court judge or in a committee of Privy Councillors, respected or otherwise, politically active or dormant. That is irrelevent.
We cannot accept a system which allows a Home Secretary to divest himself of this important function—not, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery seemed to suggest, because we have anything against judges, although in their speeches some of the apparently learned members of another place show a remarkable naivety about the British constitution as well as about political life and, indeed, life in general, which cannot inspire anyone with much confidence in their judgment in that area. We are not against judges, but this is not an issue that they are appropriate or competent to decide. It is not a judicial function. It is a political and executive decision which must be taken by a political and executive figure who is responsible to the House of Commons. It is a matter not of whether judges are competent, but of whether they are appropriate and acceptable. As the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has said, there is no good reason why one judge should be set up as a greater authority to determine whether a warrant should be issued in the national interest than the Home Secretary, who is responsible to the House of Commons. Clearly, the Home Secretary is in a better position to take such a decision than any one judge, however eminent, learned or competent.
6.30 pm
More importantly, we want to ensure that there is some accountability for decision-making in this area, however tenuous and remote it may be in practice. We know that leaving the power with the Home Secretary does not mean that he will make statements in Parliament or answer questions, either orally or in writing, but he will be no less accountable than a High Court judge operating on exactly the same criteria.
Although the Home Secretary is not formally accountable in the sense that he is not prepared to account for himself by answering questions in Parliament, there is a practical sense in which he will be accountable and will regard himself as such in a way that no High Court judge could or would. First, we expect any Home Secretary, whatever his party, to do his job conscientiously and diligently and to ensure that only warrants that are necessary are in fact issued.
That goes without saying. In that respect, he is no different from a High Court judge or a bevy of Privy Councillors. More than that, however, a Home Secretary knows that there may be a leak or a scandal. There may be a Cathy Massiter lurking in the background. Perhaps not while he is Home Secretary, but in the months, years or decades ahead, a scandal may break and he will be responsible. His reputation will be on the line for the actions that he has taken. The whole House knows of the reverberations in the homes and private offices of all previous Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries who held office during the period to which Cathy Massiter's allegations related. Every one of those distinguished and honourable individuals wanted to be sure that he had acted properly in the circumstances prevailing at the time and issued only warrants that were appropriate and could be defended both at the time and subsequently.
That pragmatic aspect of the accountability and responsibility of a Home Secretary, tenuous and remote though it is, is extremely important. Only an incumbent of that office can really know the importance and the influential nature of making oneself potentially accountable to the future in one's everyday actions as Home Secretary. The fact that his reputation, integrity and competence may be at stake in the future must make a Home Secretary far more circumspect and diligent in his decisions than any High Court judge. For that reason alone, therefore, we prefer to retain the provisions in the Bill and must regretfully oppose the amendments proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.

Mr. Waddington: I shall not weary the Committee with a long speech because the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) have really clinched the matter.
The arguments can be put quite shortly. I do not believe that it is right in principle for judges to be involved in these matters. When one reflects even for a moment on all the recent excitement about matters of this kind, I am sure that no High Court judge would wish to have the job thrust on him. One can think of no task more likely to put the judiciary straight into the centre of the political arena. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds is entirely right. The Home Secretary is responsible to Parliament, and he has vast responsibilities which he cannot shuffle off

on anyone else. There is no way in which a responsibility as solemn and important as this can be shuffled off on anyone else.
There are also practical problems. Judges are entirely unqualified to carry out these responsibilities. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) has said that he never came across any of these warrants when he was at the Home Office, although we know that there is a direct line to the Home Secretary who has skilled people to advise him on whether he should exercise his powers. It seems incredible to suggest that a judge would be capable of reaching a more correct conclusion about whether it is necessary to issue a warrant than a Home Secretary furnished with information by people who have dealt with these matters for a long period under a variety of Governments and are used to dealing with members of the security services seeking to put applications before the Secretary of State.
I am not at all impressed by arguments about what goes on in other countries. Judges in other countries discharge a whole range of responsibilities that our judges do not have. From the little knowledge that we have about other legal systems, we know that judges carry out administrative and all kinds of inquisitorial responsibilities which our judges do not undertake.
I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) about search warrants. That is a typical case of confusion being created because the same word is used for entirely separate things. There is not the slightest resemblance between warrants for interception and search warrants, except that someone was unwise enough to describe them both as warrants. That is the only connection between the two.
A search warrant relates to the exercise of police powers. The police seek it and the police execute it. Its issue relates to the long-standing responsibilities of magistrates for enforcement of the law. The search is a public act. The occupier of the house knows of it and is entitled to see the warrant. That is how the person executing it gets in. The results of the search are likely to be included as evidence in subsequent proceedings.
Here we are dealing with the issue of a warrant to obtain information that is never used in evidence in any proceedings. Such a warrant does not necessarily have anything to do with the police, and the results cannot be used in court. Therefore, with respect to my hon. Friend, it is impossible to draw any analogy between search warrants and the warrants under discussion.

Mr. Norris: I bow to my hon. and learned Friend's infinitely superior legal knowledge and experience, but there is at least one analogy between the two warrants which goes beyong the mere use of the same word. Both involve a fundamental infringement of an important civil liberty, which should not be undertaken without due account having been taken of all the circumstances in which that civil liberty is to be infringed. In that context, the two are not just similar but almost identical.

Mr. Waddington: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are talking about an infringement of civil liberties. That is why the Home Secretary is so careful in using these powers, and why, in this legislation, we are for the first time giving to the individual who feels that the Home Secretary has not properly exercised his powers the right


to say to a tribunal that, in the circumstances, he does not think that the Home Secretary has properly exercised his powers.
My hon. Friend was right to recognise that this is a most important departure in our law. It should at once be recognised in the country, as it already is in the House of Commons, that the Bill does not restrict but extends people's rights. For the first time, there is to be a new check on the exercise by the Home Secretary of his power.
Let us now revert to the essence of the debate. I cannot see that it matters two hoots whether one introduces a judge, five Privy Councillors or 15 Privy Councillors. The buck stops, and should stop, with the Home Secretary. That is the argument on which we stand, and that is why we are convinced that the structure of the Bill is right.

Mr. Alex Carlile: It is troubling to hear the Minister of State smugly adhering to a unique aspect of the British system which is lacking in almost all the other countries that have been referred to — the rule that the Home Secretary, on his own, should decide whether a warrant should be issued.
The debate seems to have revolved around two points. The first is that we trust our Home Secretary and therefore the buck should stop with him. The second is the proposition that the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament, and that is enough.
Of course we trust our Home Secretaries; I do not suggest otherwise. However, the real question is whether the accountability relied upon truly exists nowadays.
I shall have to speak from memory, because I had not anticipated that the question of accountability would be so prominent in the debate. However, I recall a pamphlet issued by the Conservative political centre in about 1973 and written by the present Secretary of State for Education and Science. I also recall the Dimbleby lecture delivered in, I believe, 1975 by the present Lord Chancellor. In both cases the point was forcefully made that Parliament no longer provides a satisfactory form of accountability to redress wrongs done to the private citizen who would be likely to suffer from such wrongs. Both the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and the Lord Chancellor argued in those publications — the lecture was published later—that what was needed was not only a written constitution but court procedures in our domestic jurisdiction designed to protect the liberty of the citizen.
I do not accept that the accountability point is sufficiently strong. By keying the arguments to those two questions—whether we trust our Home Secretaries, and whether there is sufficient accountability — the point of the amendment seems to have been missed. The point is that this should no longer be a purely executive act. It is not good enough to say that we can forget about procedures in other countries because their judges have administrative roles. Our judges have administrative roles. They are the arbiters of administrative law. Every day they hear applications for judicial review.
The great constitutional argument on the Administration of Justice Bill, arising under clause 43, is whether judges should continue to play such an important part in administrative law. In another place, where many experienced judges and lawyers sit, the verdict has been given on more than one occasion in no uncertain terms.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. and learned Gentleman is confused about the role of judges. He speaks of judicial

review. In those cases, the judges are determining whether an executive action is within or without the existing law. They are not taking executive action themselves.

Mr. Carlile: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, whose arguments during the debate have been persuasive, I suggest that there is a perfectly clear role for judges. I would adopt the analogy of search warrants, which relate to material of the highest confidentiality, as we can see from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I adopt the analogy suggested by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris).
I have confidence that the matter will not end here and that there will be extensive arguments on these points in another place. With the leave of the House, and in the keen anticipation of those arguments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 17, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and add—

'(2) The Secretary of State shall not issue a warrant under this section unless there exist reasonable grounds for considering and he does consider that the warrant is necessary—

(a) for the defence of the realm;
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime; or
(c) for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well being of the United Kingdom.

(3) A warrant shall not be considered necessary as mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above unless the information which it is considered necessary to acquire is information required to defend the United Kingdom from external and internal dangers arising from attempts at espionage or sabotage or from the actions of persons and organisations whether directed from within or without the country which may reasonably be considered to be subversive to the state. No action shall be considered "subversive to the state" unless it is an action which can reasonably be regarded as one which threatens the safety and well being of the state and which is intended to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy by unlawful political or unlawful industrial or by violent means.

(4) A warrant shall not be considered necessary as mentioned in subsection (2)(b) unless normal methods of investigation have been tried and have failed or must from the nature of things be unlikely to succeed if tried and unless there exist good reasons for believing that an interception would be likely to lead to an arrest and conviction. For the purpose of subsection (2)(b) a crime is not to be regarded as a "serious crime" unless it is one for which a man with no previous criminal record could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to at least three years imprisonment or an offence of lesser gravity in which either a large number of people is involved or there is good reason to apprehend the use of violence.

(5) A warrant shall not be considered necessary as mentioned in subsection (2)(c) unless the information which it is considered necessary to acquire is information relating to the acts or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.

(6) A warrent shall not be considered necessary as mentioned in subsection (2)(a) and (c) above unless in each case other methods of investigation have been tried and have failed or must from the nature of things be unlikely to succeed if tried.

(7) References in the following provisions of this Act to a warrant are references to a warrant under this section.'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 14, in page 2, line 18, leave out 'he considers that'.
No. 15, in page 2, line 18, after 'considers', insert 'on reasonable grounds'.
No. 16, in page 2, leave out lines 19 to 23 and insert—

'(a) for the defence of the realm;


(b) for the detection or prevention of a major subversive, terrorist or espionage activity that is likely to injure the national interest; or
(c) for the purpose of preventing or detecting a grave offence; and unless the following conditions apply—

(i) normal methods of investigation must have been tried and failed, or must from the nature of things be unlikely to succeed if tried; and
(ii) there must be a good reason to think that an interception would be likely to lead to an arrest and a conviction, or, in the case of warrants for interception on behalf of the security service, the material likely to be obtained by interception must be of direct use in compiling the information that is necessary to the security service in carrying out the tasks laid upon it by any directive given by the Secretary of State to its Director General.'.


No. 17, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
'(2A) A warrant shall not be issued unless—

(a) no other method of investigation is available, or all other methods have failed or are impracticable; and
(b) in the case of paragraph (b) of subsection (2), there are reasonable grounds for believing that an interception is likely to lead to an arrest and conviction.'.

No. 18, page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
No. 49, in clause 6, page 5, line 3, leave out 'he considers' and insert 'are'.
No. 50, in clause 6, page 5, line 3, leave out 'he considers' and insert 'are reasonably'.
No. 52, in clause 6, page 5, line 22, leave out from `that' to end of line 23 and add
'the Secretary of State on reasonable grounds considers necessary in accordance with section 2(2)(a), (b) and (c) above'.
Government amendment No. 60.
No. 140, in clause 10, page 9, line 9, at end insert—
'"grave offence" means a criminal offence for which the penalty is fixed by law or for which the maximum sentence is 14 years imprisonment.'.
No. 141, in clause 10, page 9, line 19, at end insert—
'"subversive" means having in contemplation the overthrow of the government by unlawful means;
No. 117, in clause 10, page 9, line 28, at end insert
'"serious crime" means a criminal offence for which the penalty is fixed by law or for which the maximum sentence is 14 years imprisonment.'.
Government amendment No. 118.

Mr. Hogg: The purpose of the amendment is to give greater clarity to the three phrases in clause 2(2). The justification for giving greater clarity to them is twofold. We are now legislating to define the relationship between society and the individual. We have to bear in mind that what we are contemplating is an infringement of the right of privacy, and that it is right that the House should define as exactly and fully as possible the circumstances in which an infringement of privacy is justified. I am very much opposed to giving wide, general discretionary powers to any Home Secretary or any Minister — although, of course, my right hon. and learned Friend the present Home Secretary would exercise such power in a singularly fair manner. It is the duty of Parliament to define such powers as fully and precisely as is possible. That is the principle that I put before the House in support of a clear definition.
There is a second and related reason why the Committee needs to define the powers clearly. For the first time, we are enacting a review of an appeal procedure. We are laying down the circumstances in which an aggrieved person may apply to a tribunal in order to have an executive act by the Home Secretary inquired into. There

is not much point in providing such a procedure unless the tribunal is to have standards and criteria against which it can set its examination. If powers are too widely or broadly defined, it is difficult for any review tribunal to determine whether they have been exceeded or incorrectly adhered to. That is the twofold objective that I had in mind when I drafted amendment No. 12.
The Government have made it plain that the Bill does not in any way extend the scope of the existing practices to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary presently adheres. In other words, the Bill does not enlarge the circumstances within which warrants may be issued. In drafting the amendment I sought to include only those practices that fall within existing practice and custom. There is nothing here that either enlarges or reduces the powers of a Home Secretary.
I turn briefly to subsection (3). We are dealing with the concept of the defence of the realm. The "defence of the realm", or, if hon. Members prefer it, "national security", are phrases that by themselves have little meaning. They mean only what the person involved wishes them to mean. I find that unsatisfactory. The concept of national security and of the defence of the realm is capable of more precise definition. The definition that I have adopted is one that was given in September 1952 by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was, in his directive to the security service. I understand that that defintion is the one that is presently adhered to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and it has stood the test of time.
I should like the definition given by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, or some similar definition, to be incorporated into the statute so that the power is not unfettered and so that the Home Secretary of the day knows the tests that are to be applied when he has to consider the concept of national security or the defence of the realm. In subsection (3) I have tried to determine the meaning of "subversive". Again, I have adopted existing practice and have used the language that the Lord Harris used in 1975. It is highly undesirable that a phrase such as "subversive" or "subversive to the state" should not be defined. After all, what is subversive in some people's eyes is no more than a proper expression of political dissent in the eyes of another. These things are capable of precise definition and should be incorporated into the statute. That is the justification for subsection (3).
A similar proposition applies to what I have proposed in subsection (4). The existing practice has been only to issue warrants in respect of serious crime in the circumstances set out in subsection (4). The Government are to be congratulated on their amendment No. 118, which largely — although no doubt more eloquently — does what I have tried to achieve in subsection (4). It defines the meaning of "serious crime", and I would support the Government's amendment, because it seeks to achieve the purpose that I have in mind.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said that clause 2 formed the heart of the Bill, and he is right. It forms the heart of the Bill for two reasons: first, it defines the circumstances in respect of which the Home Secretary may issue a warrant; secondly, it defines the circumstances against which the review tribunal must apply its tests if there is an appeal to it. I am against broad phraseology, especially when the liberty of the subject is involved. It is the duty of this House to define as exactly as possible what we mean by such phrasing. I have done


no more than to incorporate in statutory form the practice that has been adhered to by many Governments since 1952.
If my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is not prepared to accept my amendment, perhaps he will tell us why. I have not endeavoured to cut down his powers or to enlarge them. I have endeavoured only to define the custom and practice as they now exist. The question that I put to him is, why is he not prepared to give statutory definition to the present practice, if that is indeed his position?

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is one very good way of trying to remedy the shortcomings of clause 2(2). As it stands, subsection (2) is dangerously widely drafted. We have tried to remedy the position in other ways. But, like the hon. Gentleman, I acknowledge that the Government have at least moved in one area, in tabling their amendment, and we welcome that.
If I were in a more captious frame of mind I could, I suppose, tease the Government for having put yet another definition of "serious crime" on the statute book. Section 116 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act contains the definition of a "serious arrestable offence". In Committee we spent many wearying but enlivening hours discussing that. But the definition that the Government have put forward this time does not bear much resemblance to the definition in that Act. I do not wish to be over-captious, because we are grateful to the Government for what they are doing on this occasion, but it is not a good idea for there to be different definitions of serious crime or serious offences in different pieces of legislation. A time will have to come when we seek definitions that can be used in every piece of legislation and transferred from one measure to another.
We certainly welcome the definition in the Government amendment to clause 10 regarding serious crime. The Government have been sensible and helpful in including in statutory parlance the criteria regarding serious crime that are contained in the 1980 White Paper, but we cannot understand why they have not gone further, and have not brought in the other criteria in that White Paper. That is why we have tabled amendments to that end. Perhaps I should give you notice, Mr. Armstrong, that if the Government do not respond satisfactorily to our case, we shall seek a vote on amendment No. 16.
7 pm
We have simply lifted the words out of the 1980 White Paper in an effort to define more strictly the three areas governing the issuing of warrants. In a sense, those areas are more important than serious crime. According to current practice, as stated in the White Paper, the periodicity for the renewal of warrants on those other areas is much longer than that for the renewal of warrants for serious crime. If the Government intend, as we hope, to put into statutory form the practice that the Home Secretary affirmed on Second Reading would continue, it is impossible to understand how they can be satisfied with a Bill that defines so slackly some of the most serious areas for the issuing of warrants.
When the Home Secretary responds, as it seems apparent that he will, to this group of amendments, I hope he will say that the Government will give further consideration to these two other areas. They have shown

themselves in quite a short time able to redraft 2(2)(b). That being so, it may be more difficult for them to define "national security" in a way that would cover their objectives. Nevertheless, we believe that between now and, if not Report stage, when the Bill reaches the House of Lords, the Government should attempt to provide a better definition. We also believe that it is essential for the Government to provide a better definition of "economic well being".
The fact is that, despite any assurances that the Home Secretary may give, I am sure in good faith, the definition of "national security" in the Bill would allow the Government, if they wished, to permit the interception of the communications of, for example, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The Government may have no wish to do so. The Home Secretary has made certain statements about his view of the status of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but we are talking not about the Secretary of State's good will but about what will be the law.
As the Secretary of State has rightly claimed that this is an innovation, in that for the first time there is to be statutory regulation of the interception of communications, it seems to the Opposition to be very important indeed that if for the first time there is to be a statute it should incorporate the practice rather than that the practice should be left to assurances given, I am sure in good faith, by the Government. That is why, whatever reassurances the Home Secretary may give about CND not being tapped under the national security provision, the fact is that the Act would permit it to be tapped. We do not believe that that is right and proper.
I suppose that it could be regarded as appropriate for the Home Secretary to authorise a warrant for the interception of the communications of Friends of the Earth under either paragraph (a) or (c). If, for example, a nuclear power station were to be built at Sizewell and Friends of the Earth or another organisation decided for its own, in my view admirable, purposes that it wished to act in a strong way against the construction of that power station, it might affect national security because nuclear matters are involved. It might also affect economic well-being, in the sense that the power supplies of the nation might be put at risk. Although I am sure that the Home Secretary has in mind, when referring to economic well-being, only external communications, nevertheless those could be involved. That being so, we are very disturbed by the slackness of these two definitions.
I repeat that we are not dealing, and we never deal, with assurances given to Parliament by Ministers. Assurances given to Parliament by Ministers are not the law. We are making a law and I believe that we should make a strictly and properly defined law. The Home Secretary has conceded the need for a strictly and properly defined law by his amendment to clause 10 which will define serious crime, as stated in the subsection.
Therefore, I trust that when the Home Secretary replies to the debate he will say that he will think more carefully about this matter. Although he has said that it has been the practice under Conservative Governments for the economic well-being criterion to be used, we have great misgivings about it being put into a statute in such a loose and improperly defined way.
On the question of subversion, I agree with the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that an attempt to overthrow a Government is not of itself a subversive act. I am engaged in an attempt—I trust it will be successful


—to overthrow the Government. It is my dearest wish that that should be brought about, but I trust that that does not make me a subversive.

Mr. Corbett: One never knows.

Mr. Kaufman: As my hon. Friend says, one never knows.
The right to seek by lawful means to overthrow a British Government is one of the most cherished rights of British people. Indeed, a former Conservative Prime Minister seems to be involved a good deal in it at the moment. That is why we have tried to provide a definition of subversion in amendment No. 141. We know that it is not a good definition and we should like it to be a better definition. However, it states clearly that to be subversive a person must have
in contemplation the overthrow of the government by unlawful means".
I am sure that everybody will agree that to attempt to overthrow the Government by unlawful means is subversive and against which society has the right to protect itself, but to seek to do so by lawful means must be a democratic right in our society.

Mr. David Winnick: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that what he is suggesting in another amendment regarding the redefinition of subversion brings us closer to what was suggested by Lord Denning and to what was in force until Lord Harris of Greenwich, when he was Minister of State, changed the definition in his speech in another place in February 1975. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as the definition of subversion now stands, under which it could be said that one was trying to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy by political or industrial means, the security services and the special branch are given all the ammunition that they need and that it has led to the very serious allegations in the recent film about MI5?

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend intervenes at a felicitous moment because I was about to turn to the definition given by Lord Harris. It is about time that we took this imprimatur of holy writ away from the Lord Harris definition. If the Labout Government at that time had wanted to provide an ex cathedra definition of "subversive" they would not have chosen a minor debate on a day which was unimportant in itself in terms of that debate. The date of the announcement of the Government's policy on the European Community referendum was the main issue of the day. The Labour Government would not have chosen a minor debate in the House of Lords as the vehicle for a major definition of "subversive". Nor, with respect to the noble Lord, would they have chosen a junior Minister at the Home Office as the appropriate person, in the middle of his speech, to provide the categorical ex cathedra definition which was to run through British political life and constitutional practice for a decade or more. I do not think Lord Harris contemplated that that was quite the role for which he was being cast in that otherwise uneventful debate. Therefore, I hope we shall not say, just because Lord Harris happened to say that on that day, that that is it. We want a better definition.
We do not claim for a moment that our definition in amendment No. 141 is the best definition. We hope that,

with all their great drafting assistance, the Government can find a better definition, although after the little bit of a mess that they got themselves into over the live-in landlord, one begins to wonder just how marvellous the powers of parliamentary counsel now are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) has already said that clause 2 is at the heart of the Bill. The Bill regulates the interception of communications by the two means given in the long title. It is not a Bill, as the Government have made clear, to expand the interception of communications. The definitions in subsection (2)(a) and (c) and the definition of "subsersive" on which they rest could he used to allow the expansion of this area. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will agree to look again at subsection (2)(a) and (c). If he does that, we will find it reassuring.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In view of the uncharacteristic harmony that seems to be prevailing, will the right hon. Gentleman say why he has not included the term "parliamentary democracy" in his definition?

Mr. Kaufman: We did not feel that we needed to. The Government exist because of parliamentary democracy. Without parliamentary democracy in Britain we would not have a Government. Therefore, we felt that the overthrow of the Government by unlawful means was enough in the circumstances. But I would not argue with the hon. Gentleman. Anyone seeking to overthrow parliamentary democracy by unlawful means would be committing the most intolerable crime against Britain.

Mr. Tony Benn: I am sorry that I missed the first few minutes of the speech of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), but I listened to the rest of it carefully. His amendment exposes the Bill's weakness. First, we are discussing a narrow area of Government interception. We are excluding all surveillance. Unfortunately, the Bill's long title prevents us from discussing the fact that without a warrant, without the Bill, the Home Secretary can authorise surveillance of virtually anybody's telephone. Indeed, the guidelines issued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), which I think the Home Secretary has tightened up a bit, allow the Home Secretary to listen, in effect, to whoever he wishes to listen to.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): No.

Mr. Benn: That is my understanding.

Mr. Brittan: rose—

Mr. Benn: Before the Home Secretary intervenes, perhaps I should warn him that his words might be taken as seriously as those of Lord Harris, so I hope that he gets it right.

Mr. Brittan: Having made such an assertion, will the right hon Gentleman say what there is in the guidelines that leads him to take that view? If he will identify the paragraph, I shall be able to deal with it.

Mr. Benn: The simple point is that the warrant and the legislation do not cover surveillance. I am saying only that the Bill is deficient. The point that I am clearly making is that the Home Secretary does not have to sign a warrant. Indeed, he subcontracts—his predecessor did and I think that he does—to police officials the power to engage in


surveillance. From the point of view of somebody under surveillance or being intercepted, there is not much difference. A person is being listened to. That is my point.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman must not delude himself or try to delude anybody else. There is the world of difference between listening to somebody on the telephone, which is essentially what interception is about, and surveillance. The right hon. Gentleman has just said that under the cloak of surveillance people's telephone conversations can be listened to. That simply is not true.

Mr. Benn: With great respect, if the Home Secretary looked at the guidelines — I confine myself to those published by Lord Whitelaw, which had been issued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South in 1977 — he will find that surveillance includes listening to what people say on the telephone. There is a narrow difference between permanent interception and surveillance of a line to see whether certain things are being done and said.
The Bill does not have credibility, in part because all we are being invited to do is to put into statute what has always been done by prerogative. There is no change of policy in the Bill. If anybody thinks that this is a great liberal measure which suddenly represents an advance on past practice, he would be wrong. It is simply a Bill to put into statute what has previously been done by prerogative. That is all. Nobody should assume that there is any change.
7.15 pm
Now I come to the ingenious and lengthy, if not slightly windy, definition of subversion of the hon. Member for Grantham. The reality is that we cannot define national security, crime and economic well-being other than in the way it has been hitherto defined by every Home Secretary — that the security services want to listen to people's telephone communications on those three grounds.
I want to put a point of view to the Committee which may not find acceptance but to which I hold strongly. There is only one legitimate criterion for listening to or intercepting a person's telephone calls—that a crime is being, is about to be or is thought likely to be about to be prepared or has been committed. Once we depart from what people do and include what they think, which is what subversion is all about, we are getting away from a basic principle, upon which British justice is supposed to be founded—that people are answerable only for what they have done. Subversion is about opinion and the advocasy of opinion. That is the way in which the term "subversive" is normally used, loosely, by the press, and much more than loosely by the security services.
It is true that some statements may be against the law when they are contrary to certain provisions of race relations legislation or other matters that might lead to incitement. Any right hon. or hon. Member who goes along the Corridor, as I did not long ago, to look at the state trials for the 17th century, will find that a Jesuit priest who was found in Britain at that time was executed. It was assumed that if he was a Jesuit priest he worked for the Pope. There was no argument or trial about whether he was a loyal citizen. Jesuit priests in Britain were executed by law because they were thought to be subversive.
I know that it is difficult in this present atmosphere to put to the Committee the point about which I feel most strongly. Parliamentary democracy has been referred to.

I have always believed that we should have an elected Parliament. That may be an old-fashioned view, but I have never believed in the other place. Is it subversive for someone to say that we should get rid of the House of Lords? According to Lord Harris's definition, a person who advocates the undermining of parliamentary democracy by political means, which includes advocating the abolition of the House of Lords, is subversive. I know that that is a notional idea, because the security services have so much on their plate watching Militant, the Socialist Workers party, the Communist party and so on, that they probably do not have time for people who are simply in favour of getting rid of the House of Lords.
But once Parliament steps outside the principle that a crime entitles interception, it has moved into an area which even the hon. Member for Grantham with his legal knowledge could not clear up by longer and longer amendments. It is a crime which is potentially being prepared or executed or has been executed that entitles interception, and nothing else.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman include all crimes? If so, he would be going a long way beyond the Bill. Some crimes are very minor. Does his definition include the contemplation of a crime as a ground for interception?

Mr. Benn: It depends on how one defines "contemplation". If people think about a crime, if contemplation has a slightly cerebral quality, I am not sure that even the hon. Gentleman would be in favour of that. Of course, I include serious crime. Everything justifying interception has to be criminal. Then we have to differentiate between the person who does not pay his parking ticket and those engaged in serious crime. Serious crime covers espionage.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In contemplation or in prospect.

Mr. Benn: I am talking about preparation. Contemplation is a difficult concept. The hon. Gentleman is trying to build a false bridge between criminal intent and opinion. Once we shift into the area of opinion we are on a slippery slope.
I hope that the Committee will believe me when I say that although I am supposed to be involved in a lot of Left-wing activities when I meet many people and attend meetings where I am criticised, I have never met a revolutionary in Britain. If by a revolutionary is meant somebody who is engaged not in preparing policy but in preparing to overthrow the state by force, I have never met one.
One of the ideas which have to be eliminated from the minds of some hon. Gentlemen—I will give the reason in a minute, because the Bill could work in the hands of a Labour Government or Governments of a different colour — is what I would call the Chapman Pincher tendency in the security services—the honest belief that if a person reads the Morning Star or contributes to Socialist Worker or Militant, he is, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) would say, in contemplation of the crime of overthrowing the state. If that is the belief, then truly the Home Secretary might just as well take the total powers that he has taken. I make that as a general point only because I am not concerned at this stage with individual examples.
I say to the Committee that at its peril does it move from crime to opinion, the advocacy of opinion or the


organisation of opinion, even if the opinion means that one changes the structure of power in the parliamentary system—and I have given one example in respect of the House of Lords.
One might argue certain other matters that I have argued. I have always believed that the right to make peace or war should be vested in the House of Commons, and nowhere else. In the United States, the President cannot make war without the consent of Congress. In Britain, war-making is a prerogative right. At the time of the Falklands war, the Prime Minister properly reminded Parliament that it had no right whatsoever to say whether we should go to war in the south Atlantic. I think that that is wrong, but it is a part of the constitution that Parliament should have no power of treaty-making or war-making.
The point I make is that the advocacy of opinion and the organisation of opinion, even if it goes to what are some of the central tenets of what we now call parliamentary democracy, is not subversive. The matter should be seen in that way.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the advocacy of opinion, but does he agree that if one can define the means and they be unlawful, then that is subversive?

Mr. Benn: One then gets to the problem of the attitude towards law-breaking, which is a different question.
I believe strongly and have said in Parliament before that all our liberties were won by law-breaking. The Act of Uniformity said that one had to adhere to the 39 articles. Humanists, Catholics and Jews would never have had the right to worship as they wished if they had not broken the law. Is breaking the law on conscientious grounds subversion? I do not believe that it is for a moment. The Prime Minister would not be Prime Minister if the suffragettes had not chained themselves to the railings and broken the law. The law—dare I say it as a non-lawyer — proceeds majestically from breach to breach. But when people break the law, they take the consequences of breaking the law.
My old uncle, Ernest Benn, who was an individualist, did not believe in the census. When he was about 75, he would not fill in a census form. He thought that the Government had no right to ask him questions about how old he was, and so on. In fact, he was an early monetarist. I wish that he had lived to see the Prime Minister, because he would have loved to think that his ideas, which, when he advocated them, were seen as the lunatic Right, should now be regarded as Conservative. He was taken to court for not filling in the census form. What infuriated him more than anything else was that his barrister said, "Your honour, he is an old man, I hope that you will forgive him." He was not an old man who hoped to be forgiven, but a principled law breaker. He did not believe in the right of the Government to find out about his domestic circumstances, his age, what he did and how many children he had. I know that is not a serious crime, but it is law breaking.
The Home Secretary is not going to budge, I know. The people in the civil servants box are there to see that he does not budge. No predecessor would ever have allowed him to budge. For many years—this is why in the Bill there is no political advantage to be gained by Labour against Conservative or, dare I say it, by Liberal against

Conservative, because when the Liberals were in power they pursued people and opened their letters, and it is all on the record — Home Secretaries, entrenched by law, have had total discretion to intercept, because it was done under the prerogative. That is why in 1660 the Post Office was nationalised by Charles II. He wanted to open the letters. From 1660 onwards, letters have always been opened. The king had to know who was saying what to whom. Therefore, from that time to this, successive Home Secretaries may have been occupying the bridal suite in the grand hotel called the Home Office, but the maitre d'hotel there has decided what has happened. The Maxwell Fyfe directive entrenched it. Maxwell Fyfe must have written that directive to please the permanent secretary or whoever it was who looked after security at the Home Office. Maxwell Fyfe said, "I, the elected Minister, will never interfere in what you do." Is that a principle of accountability? I am talking now not about parliamentary accountability, but about ministerial responsibility. The Home Secretary, assuming that he abides by the Maxwell Fyfe directive, is not even allowed to ask the security services what they have been up to.
As a matter of fact, the security services, being very human, have all sorts of ideas. I mentioned the Chapman Pincher tendency. Then there is the Cathy Massiter tendency. Within the security services, there are those who think that everybody to the Left of the leader of the Liberal party or the SDP, is a subversive; and there are others who think that, if one bugs CND, that is a direct attack upon civil liberties. Within that family—if that is the word—of the security services, there are tremendous arguments going on. Maxwell Fyfe said, "I am not going to interfere."
What I said on Second Reading I must say again. The United States would not permit the Home Secretary to accept the amendment because British intelligence is under the supervision of American intelligence. In saying this, I know exactly what I am saying because, as a Minister, I had to go to Washington to get permission from the Atomic Energy Commission under Dr. Glenn Seaborg for a minor change in our nuclear technology. The special relationship with America, which was part of the provision of the nuclear exchanges, means — and I have had responsibilities in this area over a very long period — that the Americans will not disclose nuclear secrets to us unless we satisfy them that they can supervise our intelligence services. Hon. Gentlemen may disregard this, but it is true. I know it to be true. I was within the framework where it was true. Therefore, the Home Secretary cannot budge on this.
I turn to the next point. Assuming that the Home Secretary cannot budge, he will be very courteous when he replies to the hon. Member for Grantham, as one always is when helpful Back Benchers come up with suggestions, and the hon. Member for Grantham will be patted on the head. The prerogative is one thing, and it has happened for centuries. What goes on in the secrecy of power is something that Parliament does not know about and may not want to know about, but put it in the Bill and we take responsibility for it.
No Parliament should give this power to any Executive—Labour, Tory, Liberal or SDP. No Parliament should do it, and I will tell the Committee why. It is because another Government—perhaps a Labour Government or a Government of another colour — could use the language of the Bill to intercept the telephone calls of


every Conservative Member. Once we started discussing national security, assuming that there was a change of Government and that we were to decide not to pursue the missiles and to get rid of cruise and so on, every Conservative party member who thought that was wrong and kept people informed as to what was happening would be acting contrary to national security as defined by the new Government. Every stockbroker who tried to export his capital abroad when exchange control was in operation in this country could have his telephone calls intercepted, because what he was doing could be, in the mind of a Labour Secretary of State, damaging to the economic well-being of the nation.
This is the clause which will lead me to vote against the Bill. I am not arguing a particular definition of national security or economic well-being. I am saying that no Parliament should entrust such powers to any Executive. Once we entrust such powers to the Executive, we are responsible for what it does. At present, we are not responsible for what the Home Secretary does. We shall have to wait for his memoirs, in which he will tell us what really happened, and then it will be too late for any of us to know and, if one waits 30 years, the file will have been weeded so that this will not be seen anyway. But once we take responsibility as a legislative assembly for giving the power to the Executive in statute, we are retrospectively legitimising 300 years of Executive interference in the right of free communication. It is justified only if a serious crime, defined in the proper way of espionage or violence of any kind, is in preparation, is being committed or has been committed.
7.30 pm
Once we have a toehold in the Bill—which changes nothing except the basis of authority, for which the Home Secretary will act entirely without regard to any principles that we control—it is time for Parliament to look at the security services. If Maxwell Fyfe could say what he said, then it should be in a Bill. If Lord Harris could say what he said in the House of Lords in 1975—I do not know whether it was what the civil servants told him to say or what suddenly came into his mind in a flash of rhetoric—it is clear that these are policy matters.
Parliament should decide policy matters. For example, let us discuss what is a subversive, let us legislate, and so on. Policy is for us. Operations must necessarily be for those who are responsible. Once an operation is completed, we expect those who have undertaken it to be accountable for that operation.
There must be many examples—because the security services are comprised of ordinary people—where errors have been made. I shall give one. A special branch man went to Wales to find out who was studying a course on Marxism at a school there. The matter was in a newspaper and I recall raising it with the then Home Secretary. That was the special branch going into what one might call the sphere of academic freedom, because it wanted to know who was studying Marxism. Is that, according to Maxwell Fyfe, excluded from ministerial responsibility? Is the Home Secretary not to prevent excesses or errors of that kind from recurring?
This is an important Bill. The last thing that I want to see is the House of Commons just rubber-stamping gross abuses of civil liberties that have occurred under all Governments and all Home Secretaries for as long as they have exercised that prerogative power. Whether I go into

the Lobby with the hon. Member for Grantham is a technical decision. The reason that I have given in my remarks will explain to the Committee why I can support neither the clause nor the Bill.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) explained candidly why he wishes to tear up 300 years of history as he invited the Committee to remove from the use of Government the powers which, on his highly selective reading of history, have been exercised for those 300 years.
His was a highly selective reading of history because when he talked, for example, about the use of surveillance at the beginning of his remarks, he wrongly suggested that a way to get round the powers was to ignore the provisions in paragraph 12 of the latest guidelines on surveillance, although that paragraph makes it clear that they cannot be used as a way to secure interception by the back door.
Similarly, to say, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the Bill made no change but simply enshrined existing practice, was doing less than justice to the important innovation of the Bill in providing for a tribunal with effective power and access to information, with the right to strike down a Home Secretary's warrant and to award compensation. That is an innovation of the first order of magnitude.
Although the right hon. Member for Chesterfield has an encyclopaedic knowledge of everything that has happened since the days of the Stuarts, his energies would be better directed — if he wants to be fair in these matters — to taking account of that major innovation, one which no Home Secretary has previously put before Parliament and no Executive have been prepared to concede.

Mr. Benn: I am anxious to be fair to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The point that he makes is in the Bill. Will he, for the purpose of clarification, explain the difference between the new system of monitoring that he mentions and the speedy examination of exactly the same issue that was undertaken by Lord Bridge? Was the Bridge job any different from that which the right hon. and learned Gentleman provides in the Bill?

Mr. Brittan: Lord Bridge conducted an inquiry, as it were, not under the backing of the Bill. Nor was he concerned with awarding damages or quashing a warrant of any kind. Under the Bill, the tribunal—it will not be a single judge but a tribunal comprising five people — will be empowered to do all of those things. The right hon. Gentleman fails to take account of what the Bill says. He allows his journey down 300 years of history to get the better of him when he fails to acknowledge the substantial change that is made by this legislation.
The memory of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield is not only selective about the last 300 years but is highly selective in rendering an account of what is in the Bill. Going back a shorter period than to the time of the Stuarts, it is strange that the right hon. Gentleman should criticise Parliament so severely for contemplating giving to Secretaries of State the powers provided in this measure, with the additional safeguards, when he ignores the fact that Parliament entrusted the power to intercept to the Secretary of State in the Post Office Act 1969, a piece of legislation which the right hon. Gentleman might recall from his previous ministerial career.

Mr. Benn: I do not rise from a desire to clear my reputation. That is not what I am about. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, to be fair, will recognise that when the Post Office was a Crown Department, the prerogative operated through the Postmaster-General. When it became a public corporation, the continuation of that prerogative under the legislation was not an endorsement but a continuity. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman examines the position, he will find that, as a Cabinet Minister, I raised all these points at the time.

Mr. Brittan: I do not know what points were raised in Cabinet. It is a fact, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Government who did exactly what he now says we should not do — that is, gave parliamentary approval, not by an executive act and not by the prerogative but by way of specific statutory approval, to the act of interception by the Home Secretary of the day, which was what the Act to which the right hon. Gentleman referred did.
To say that it merely preserved continuity in the changing circumstances of the Post Office was an unworthy point for the right hon. Gentleman to make. To do him justice, he normally concentrates on matters of substance rather than on matters of form. In terms of the substance of the matter, there can be no doubt that the legislation to which he was a party did exactly what he is now condemning us for inviting Parliament to do.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for what he said about the Government amendment and the approach of the Government to these issues. The right hon. Gentleman put a number of points to me which were designed to tighten up the Bill. I have considered them all carefully, and many of them are reflected in Government amendments, such as the one that we are considering. While we have had a constructive dialogue, I do not expect the right hon. Member for Gorton to be satisfied with the remainder of the Bill. For my part, this has been a useful way to consider the exercise of powers which, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said, Governments of all political complexions have used.
The central question of this debate is the extent to which one can put precise definitions in a statute. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) was seductive in inviting me to be as precise as possible in the definition of what are draconian powers. I hope that he will feel, as the right hon. Member for Gorton was good enough to say he felt, that the fact that we have sought to define crime in the amendment in a way more specifically than the Bill defines it shows that where it is possible to be more precise, I wish to be so.
It is not always possible to be more precise, even in that area of serious crime. The difficulty is illustrated by the fact that we were teased, even if mildly, for having a different definition from the definition of "serious crime" for the purposes of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
The reason why we hesitated to define serious crime for the purposes of this legislation was precisely that the definition in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, if applied here, would have enabled Home Secretaries to have a greater power of interception than has been past practice, as defined in the 1980 White Paper. It seemed crazy to introduce a definition that would allow more interception than has been the practice or than has been

desired. It was for that reason that, after some hesitation as to the appropriateness of the language, we included — at the invitation of the Opposition — a definition culled from the 1980 White Paper rather than from the 1984 Act. That illustrates the difficulty of having a definition of a more precise kind than appears in the Bill for many of these areas.
Much of the discussion has been about the definition of national security and the definition of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in relation to information regarding the acts or intentions of persons outside the British Isles.
"National security" is an expression which is necessarily imprecise, but it appears in the European convention and is not some uniquely British and vague authorisation for executive discretion.
It is also fair to say that the word "subversive" covers one aspect of national security, but the foreign aspect of it is necessarily not covered by the operation of the security services and therefore would not be adequately covered by the definition of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham. The problem with that is its limited character. It was for precisely this kind of reason that we came to the conclusion that no portmanteau definition was available that would cover both the aspects of national security relating to what can be broadly described as subversion and the use of it in relation to foreign intelligence. With due deference to my hon. Friend, therefore, I do not believe that his definition succeeds in achieving that objective.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend is saying that he will not incorporate in this statute the Maxwell Fyfe directive. Is he, therefore, implying that he is in certain circumstances prepared to issue warrants in circumstances that are not covered by the Maxwell Fyfe directive?

Mr. Brittan: The Maxwell Fife directive related to the work of the security service. My hon. Friend will be aware that the directive to the security service was in no sense comprehensive as far as foreign and defence matters are concerned because that is not primarily the role of the security service. If my hon. Friend looks at the 1985 White Paper he will find that the explanation for that is more readily apparent.

Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the Government are not departing in any way from the definition of subversion given by Lord Harris in February 1975? If that is the case, does he not recognise — I am referring to internal matters in the United Kingdom — that that will inevitably, because it is so loosely worded, give rise to the sort of abuses that we have been hearing about in the last few months?

Mr. Brittan: I was coming to the question of subversion. The very fact that Lord Harris's definition was given in a debate—but I can assure the Committee that it was a considered definition and was not simply prepared for the purposes of some trivial debate—indicates that it would not be right to enshrine a particular definition of that kind in the statute, even though it is our intention to adhere to that definition as far as subversion goes, which is one limb of the work of the security service. Indeed, I gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee


explaining in some detail the operation of that provision, which is of two limbs. For activities to be subversive they have both to threaten the safety or well-being of the state and to be intended to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means. It is not sufficient for one limb of the argument to be met; both have to be met.
So, although of course I shall consider what the right hon. Member for Gorton said about the provision of tighter definitions, it would be wrong for me to hold out the hope that they are likely to be obtainable. We addressed that prospect in all good faith and were successful in providing the amendment, which I commend to the Committee, relating to serious crime, but we have not been successful in finding a comprehensive, effective definition likely to stand the test of time as far as the other limbs are concerned. I can assure the Committee once again that we have no intention of going in any way beyond the practices of Governments in the past and that the extra safeguards provided by a scrutiny both by the commissioner of the general practices and by the tribunal in relation to particular appeals are, I believe, valuable additions to this Bill.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I cannot conceal from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that I am disappointed that he has not felt able to accept the amendment I have put forward. The Committee has heard the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) say that the Labour party has it in mind to vote on amendment No. 16. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if that were to happen. Amendment No. 16 is remarkably close to amendment No. 12, which I put down, and I urge those of my hon. Friends who have been persuaded by the arguments put forward to support amendment No. 16. So that there should be only one Division, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 16, in page 2, leave out lines 19 to 23 and insert—

'(a) for the defence of the realm;
(b) for the detection or prevention of a major subversive, terrorist or espionage activity that is likely to injure the national interest; or
(c) for the purpose of preventing or detecting a grave offence; and unless the following conditions apply—

(i) normal methods of investigation must have been tried and failed, or must from the nature of things be unlikely to succeed if tried; and
(ii) there must be a good reason to think that an interception would be likely to lead to an arrest and a conviction, or, in the case of warrants for interception on behalf of the security service, the material likely to be obtained by interception must be of direct use in compiling the information that is necessary to the security service in carrying out the tasks laid upon it by any directive given by the Secretary of State to its Director General.'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 183, Noes 243.

Division No. 178]
[7.50 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Guy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barron, Kevin


Ashdown, Paddy
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Beith, A. J.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Benn, Tony


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bermingham, Gerald





Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Janner, Hon Greville


Boyes, Roland
John, Brynmor


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Johnston, Russell


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Kennedy, Charles


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Kirkwood, Archy


Bruce, Malcolm
Lambie, David


Buchan, Norman
Lamond, James


Caborn, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Leighton, Ronald


Campbell, Ian
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Canavan, Dennis
Litherland, Robert


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Loyden, Edward


Cartwright, John
McCartney, Hugh


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clarke, Thomas
McGuire, Michael


Clay, Robert
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McKelvey, William


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cohen, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Coleman, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Conlan, Bernard
McTaggart, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Madden, Max


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marek, Dr John


Cowans, Harry
Martin, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Craigen, J. M.
Maxton, John


Crowther, Stan
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Meadowcroft, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Michie, William


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Deakins, Eric
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dixon, Donald
Nellist, David


Dobson, Frank
O'Neill, Martin


Dormand, Jack
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dubs, Alfred
Park, George


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Parry, Robert


Eadie, Alex
Pavitt, Laurie


Eastham, Ken
Pendry, Tom


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Pike, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Ewing, Harry
Prescott, John


Fatchett, Derek
Randall, Stuart


Faulds, Andrew
Redmond, M.


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Fields, T. (L 'pool Broad Gn)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fisher, Mark
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Flannery, Martin
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, George


Foster, Derek
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Foulkes, George
Rooker, J. W.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Rowlands, Ted


Freud, Clement
Ryman, John


George, Bruce
Sedgemore, Brian


Godman, Dr Norman
Sheerman, Barry


Golding, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Gould, Bryan
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Gourlay, Harry
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hardy, Peter
Snape, Peter


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Soley, Clive


Haynes, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Strang, Gavin


Heffer, Eric S.
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Home Robertson, John
Tinn, James


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Torney, Tom


Howells, Geraint
Wainwright, R.


Hoyle, Douglas
Wallace, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Wareing, Robert






Weetch, Ken
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Welsh, Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


White, James



Williams, Rt Hon A.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilson, Gordon
Mr. Robin Corbett and


Winnick, David
Mr. John McWilliam.


Woodall, Alec





NOES


Adley, Robert
Freeman, Roger


Aitken, Jonathan
Gale, Roger


Alexander, Richard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Amess, David
Gorst, John


Ancram, Michael
Gower, Sir Raymond


Arnold, Tom
Grant, Sir Anthony


Ashby, David
Gregory, Conal


Aspinwall, Jack
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Grist, Ian


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Grylls, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Baldry, Tony
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Hannam, John


Batiste, Spencer
Harris, David


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Bendall, Vivian
Hayes, J.


Benyon, William
Hayhoe, Barney


Best, Keith
Hayward, Robert


Bevan, David Gilroy
Heddle, John


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hickmet, Richard


Blackburn, John
Hicks, Robert


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Bottomley, Peter
Hordern, Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Howard, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hunter, Andrew


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Irving, Charles


Bright, Graham
Jackson, Robert


Brinton, Tim
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Kilfedder, James A.


Browne, John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Bruinvels, Peter
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Buck, Sir Antony
Lawrence, Ivan


Burt, Alistair
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Butcher, John
Lester, Jim


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Lightbown, David


Carttiss, Michael
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Cash, William
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Chapman, Sydney
Lord, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Lyell, Nicholas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
McCrindle, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Clegg, Sir Walter
Macfarlane, Neil


Colvin, Michael
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Conway, Derek
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Coombs, Simon
McQuarrie, Albert


Cope, John
Major, John


Cormack, Patrick
Malone, Gerald


Couchman, James
Mather, Carol


Cranborne, Viscount
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Critchley, Julian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dickens, Geoffrey
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Merchant, Piers


Dover, Den
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dykes, Hugh
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Eggar, Tim
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Emery, Sir Peter
Miscampbell, Norman


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Moate, Roger


Fallon, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Farr, Sir John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Moore, John


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Forman, Nigel
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Forth, Eric
Moynihan, Hon C.


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Murphy, Christopher


Fox, Marcus
Neale, Gerrard





Needham, Richard
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Newton, Tony
Stokes, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Normanton, Tom
Sumberg, David


Norris, Steven
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Temple-Morris, Peter


Osborn, Sir John
Terlezki, Stefan


Ottaway, Richard
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Thornton, Malcolm


Pollock, Alexander
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, Barry
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Portillo, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Powell, William (Corby)
Tracey, Richard


Powley, John
Trippier, David


Proctor, K. Harvey
Trotter, Neville


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rathbone, Tim
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rhodes James, Robert
Viggers, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Waddington, David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rowe, Andrew
Walden, George


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Ryder, Richard
Waller, Gary


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Ward, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Warren, Kenneth


Scott, Nicholas
Watson, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Whitfield, John


Shersby, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Speller, Tony
Wolfson, Mark


Spence, John
Wood, Timothy


Spencer, Derek
Woodcock, Michael


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Robin
Younger, Rt Hon George


Steen, Anthony



Stern, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Mr. Ian Lane.

Question accordingly negatived.

8 pm

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 2, line 27, at end insert—
'(4) A warrant shall not extend to data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1984.'.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Forrester): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 54, in clause 6, page 5, line 23, at end add—
'(3) The requirements of this subsection are satisfied in relation to personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1984 if—

(a) the personal data intercepted relate only to the person specified or described in the warrant;
(b) any other personal data are destroyed.'.

Mr. Cohen: The amendments deal with personal information in computers. The issue will be of increasing importance. The Government have paid scant attention to the problem in the Bill and in general policy.
The Bill covers all forms of communications, whatever their nature, passing through the system, such as letters,


telephone calls, telex messages, telegrams and other forms of electronic transmission such as computer data or facsimili.
On 26 February I asked the Home Secretary
whether his current arrangements for interception of communications extend to the surveillance of data stored on, and transmitted to and from, computers; and if he will make a statement.
He said:
My powers to authorise under warrant the interception of communications extend only to the postal and public telecommunications systems but cover any form of communication in those systems, including the transmission through them of computer data. I have no such powers to authorise data stored on computers or to other forms of data base." — [Official Report, 26 February 1985; Vol. 74, c. 97.]
He was trying to say that he had no power to authorise access to computer data. That might be all right on the surface, but the Secretary of State will have access to communications through the public telecommunications system.
Many computers are linked through the telecommunications system. The trend is increasing. We are talking about a massive new area to which the security services will have access.
An article in The Scotsman on 9 March entitled "Still in the Dark" stated that the most fundamental weakness of the Government's proposals is that they do not provide
for the proven capacity of new technology to produce all kinds of sophisticated methods of surveillance. Nothing in the Government's proposals will check their growth or control their use.
That article said that the Government have no control over the sophisticated equipment which is now available to the security services and that there is no control over access to data.
The new trend gives scope for the collection of vast amounts of data, much of it personal. The scope goes way beyond that of warrants issued in respect of certain individuals. Information can be accumulated on vast numbers of individuals for whom a particular warrant is not intended.
My amendment would ensure that irrelevant data were destroyed and discarded. Without such an amendment those data could be put on a person's file, even though the original warrant was not intended to cover that person. If such records are not destroyed, files on vast numbers of people could be created and Big Brother could operate in a big way. Political control over the issuing of warrants could become more of a sham than it is already.
Amendment No. 19 is a probing amendment. Why is access to data included in the Bill? Should that subject be considered separately on its own merits? Perhaps the Government have not worked out all the implications.
Intercepting a telephone call and intercepting communications between computers involves two different activities. Many data intercepted from a computer will not be relevant or related to a warrant. A warrant provides a means of facilitating the surveillance of many innocent individuals, organisations and companies. What is the scale of present activity, and what is it estimated to be?
International data will also be capable of interception. We remember what happened at GCHQ and the American listening post in Britain. How will the Bill apply to such computer data? Many of the data obtained will be irrelevant. What will happen to them? Will not the warrant be ineffective in terms of political control?
Communications between computers are increasing. the interception of transmissions between computers will also increase. It would be wrong to allow the rules of surveillance to be decided without proper consideration.
What will be on the warrant which relates to interceptions of computer data? Interceptions must not be allowed to get out of hand. I cannot imagine a security officer telling the Minister that he has a warrant which is capable of intercepting 50,000 records. What will appear on a warrant? Safeguards are a key principle of the amendments. It is certainly a key principle in amendment No. 54. That is the substance of the amendment. In a sense, it is a minimal amendment as it is not related to all data. It refers only to non-applicable personal data of the sort to which I have referred, which are the sort of data that should be destroyed. Any personal data that are intercepted and kept should relate only to the individual who is named on the warrant.
What is the safeguard if personal records are not destroyed? If they are not destroyed, the warrant system is open to massive abuse. If the security services want information on individuals other than the person named in the warrant, they should not obtain it by any back-door means. They should obtain other warrants that contain the names of those on whom they want information. The security services should not have the right generally to capture information and then to browse through it for purposes that are unconnected with the original warrant. I submit that the safeguards that I propose are necessary and that they should be made statutory.
If we leave it to the security services to administer safeguards in their own way, problems and abuses will inevitably arise. The Cathy Massiter case was an example of that. On Second Reading I referred to a chief constable who was interviewed and asked who he would consider to be subversive and who should be tapped. Included in his list was anyone decrying marriage, homosexuals, those who advocate less severe penalties in the courts and those who support indiscipline in our schools. That is an example of the abuse that will stem from the use of computer data. The Lindop report refers to the security services being, in the worst sense, a closed shop It describes them as "hermetic". They are open to the public view and to public criticism, but there is no guarantee that they do not stray beyond their allotted functions.
It is important that the safeguards of which I have spoken are put into law and administered under legal control. Do the Government recognise that the interception of computer data should not be considered the same as the interception of a telephone call? The 13ill suggests that they do not have that recognition. Do they recognise also that the collection of a vast amount of data is a dangerous new development? Data that are not specific to individual warrants relating to specific individuals should be destroyed. If that does not happen, a warrant that applies to an individual could be used to tap everyone who uses the telephone exchange in that individual neighbourhood. Satisfactory answers must be given to my questions before we embark on any expansion of tapping into computer data.

Mr. Waddington: At the beginning of his remarks, I thought that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was suggesting that the Government had done nothing about data protection. In the previous Session I laboured long


with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on that issue, so no one can tell me that the Government have done nothing on that score.
It is clear that the hon. Member for Leyton has raised some important issues, but it is apparent that he is harbouring some misconceptions. The first stage in the process that we are considering is the issue of the warrant. A warrant can be issued only in the circumstances that are set out in clause 2 or, in respect of particular persons or addresses, in clause 3. We are talking about the interception of communications passing through the public telecommunications system. Once a warrant has been obtained, no one knows what will be picked up as a result of it. We must discuss whether it is possible to exclude data from material that might be collected as a result of an interception. When that is considered, it is clear that is is impossible to do so.
8.15 pm
The Bill deals with interception of communications in the public system. This embraces all forms of telecommunications, such as voice telephony, telegrams, telex and data. Equally, the post covers communications in whatever form, written or electronic. The interception of computer data that are transmitted along telephone wires or sent through the post would be an offence under the Bill, unless there had been a warrant. The amendment takes one type of communication and seeks to put it in a special category so that it cannot be intercepted under a warrant. As I have said, that is impractical. Computer data travel down ordinary telephone wires, and it is only when the interception takes place that it can be determined whether computer data have been intercepted and whether they are personal data as defined in current legislation or another form of data. Only when a package is intercepted and opened can we determine the form of communication within it.
The amendment would place those carrying out authorised interception in an impossible position. Any one of the communications that they intercept could contain personal data as defined and thus be outside the authority of the warrant.

Mr. McWilliam: Does the Minister accept that it is no longer "the" public telephone network? We have several public telephone networks. Secondly, does he accept that postal packages do not need to be opened to have their contents intercepted? It is wrong to make the statements that he is making.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Clause 1 states:
A person who intentionally intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by post or by means of a public telecommunications system shall be guilty of an offence".
It refers specifically to "a public telecommunications system".

Mr. McWilliam: I am sorry if I was unclear. The Minister was talking about "the public telecommunications system". That does not exist. The Bill talks about "a public telecommunications system," because there are now several.

Mr. Waddington: The hon Gentleman is merely playing with words. If he wants to take up the time of the committee to discuss whether I should have said "a public

telecommunications system" or "the public telecommunications system," I suggest that he is not making a very profitable intervention.

Mr. McWilliam: I am not playing with words. There is a great difference between "the public telecommunications system" when it is a state monopoly that is operated by civil and public servants and the position in which the Government have landed us. It is a much more serious matter to grant a warrant for the present system to be intercepted than it was in the past. I was not being facetious. Indeed, I was being quite deliberate. The Minister talked about "the public telecommunications system," and we no longer have only one system. I am not making a play on words. I am concerned about the fact that we have a dispersed telecommunications system rather than a specific system.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but he is still wrong. Clause 10(1) defines a public telecommunication service as
a telecommunication service provided by means of a public telecommunication system".
It is, therefore, proper for me to refer to the public telecommunication service, to which we all refer and to which clause 1 refers. Having said that, we would do better to proceed.
If one intercepts a communication going through the post, one does not know until one has intercepted it whether it contains one type of material or another. It could contain data within the definition of the Data Protection Act 1984. We are examining the powers that should be given to the Secretary of State to issue a warrant in the first place, not trying to deal with the entirely artificial question whether, having issued the warrant, the Secretary of State should be prevented from dealing with particular types of material that come into his hands because of the proper use of that warrant. That is the misconception in the mind of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam).
If the warrant is necessary for one of the purposes defined in the Bill, that is a full and sufficient justification for the interception to be carried out under it. If personal data happen to be intercepted and are found to be relevant to any investigation into, say, terrorism, it is right that use should be made of that information, just as, under the Data Protection Act, there are exceptions from the nondisclosure provisions for crime and national security. If the intercepted material — be it personal data or something else—is found not to be relevant to any of the purposes, clause 6 contains comprehensive safeguards to ensure that it is destroyed as soon as that becomes clear.
The amendment to clause 6 is unnecessary. Clause 6 already contains comprehensive safeguards to ensure that intercepted material is copied, retained and disclosed only so far as that is strictly necessary for one of the purposes set out in clause 2. The amendment is also undesirable, because it would mean that intercepted personal data relating to someone other than the person specified in the warrant would have to be destroyed. Clearly, if an intercepted communication, including or consisting of personal data, has no relevance to any of the clause 2 purposes, it must be destroyed, as required by clause 6, regardless of whether the personal data relate to the subject of the warrant or to someone else. If such a communication contained information relevant to one of the purposes, it would be absurd to say that it had to be destroyed. The


piece of information in question might be the vital clue that would lead to the apprehension of a terrorist or major criminal. The only relevant test — it is a strict one — is whether the intercepted material, whatever it might consist of, is relevant for one of the purposes of clause 2. The introduction of extraneous considerations is not only irrelevant but harmful.

Mr. Cohen: Clause 6 does not specifically say that non-relevant data should be destroyed. I should be grateful if the Minister would point out where in the legislation it says that such data should be destroyed. The hon. and learned Gentleman's point about terrorists should be considered seriously. I believe that that aspect could be dealt with by the issue of a separate warrant. We are in danger of a vast amount of data being collected — then set against the names of those on whom the security services have files—and automatically inserted in files. That is a Big Brother technique.

Mr. Waddington: I direct the hon. Gentleman to clause 6(2), which states;
The requirements of this subsection are satisfied in relation to any intercepted material if each of the following, namely" —
(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e)—
is limited to the minimum that is necessary as mentioned in section 2(2) above.
If the material cannot be held justifiably, because it is not covered by any of the purposes in clause 2, it cannot be kept at all. Therefore, clause 6 deals with this matter.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that interesting point. I hope that, in view of my explanation, he will feel that it is possible to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Cohen: I shall study the Minister's statement with interest when it appears in Hansard and, if necessary, bring the amendment back at a later stage. I thank the Minister for his comments.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

SCOPE OF WARRANTS

Mr. Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 2, line 32, leave out from 'from' to end of line 35.

The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 22, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'person' and insert 'individual'.
No. 23, in page 2, line 37, leave out from 'warrant' to `and' in line 39.
No. 24, in page 2, line 39, leave out from 'described' to end of line 42.
No. 41, in clause 5, page 4, leave out lines 15 to 17.
No. 43, in clause 5, page 4, line 21, leave out subsection (2).
No. 77, in clause 7, page 6, line 27, leave out from `warrant' to end of line 37.

Mr. Cohen: Clause 3 is too broad. Tighter control is needed to stop the invasion of privacy and abuses that could develop. This cluster of amendments seeks to do that. The amendments are concerned with the scope and modifications of warrants. Amendment No. 77 deals with what the tribunal can examine in relation to a "relevant" warrant.
The central theme of the amendments is the need to ensure that warrants relate specifically to one person. If there is not one warrant for one individual, there will not be proper political control. If there is not proper accountability, the system is open to abuse.
The Home Secretary has been asked about the number of warrants he has signed. Often the figure looks small—about 500—but, in fact, the conversations of a vast number of people are tapped. Hon. Members are given no indication of the true number. If there were one warrant for one individual, a much clearer picture of the extent of tapping would be available. That would he a better system.
The Government are trying to apply warrants to many addresses. That is wrong, because it is a means of obtaining spurious and irrelevant data.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that if, for example, the person being tapped and against whom the warrant is issued is a limited company, it may well have hundreds, if not thousands, of employees? There should be a right of remedy for those employees who are caught in the tapping morass as a result of the single warrant.

Mr. Cohen: I agree. It brings me to amendment No. 22. It seems a little absurd to say
leave out 'person' and insert 'individual'.
A person can be a legal person or a corporate body or partnership or something of that nature. We should make the point clear and say that the warrant relates to an individual.
Amendment No. 23 relates to the tapping of premises. The warrant should relate to individuals. There should not be a warrant for a number of addresses because that is how surplus, irrelevant material is obtained. That provision provides blanket coverage. The provision could apply to the offices of the National Council for Civil Liberties—perhaps that is what it has been applied to in the past—the CND, NUM headquarters, Labour party headquarters or even to the telephones in the House. The Government might have a legitimate reason to tap the telephone of a Member. They would then have the right to issue a warrant to tap the telephones of the House. Warrants should be addressed to individuals, not to premises. The provision is open to abuse. People's privacy would be invaded without any remedy being provided.
Clause 3 refers to "other communications" as well as the main communications being tapped according to the warrant, "as it is necessary". That is too broad. It takes the power away from the Secretary of State. It becomes an administrative power. Someone can implement a tap on a person "as it is necessary". That is not as the Secretary of State deems necessary in his signed warrant. It is an administrative decision. That is inappropriate and creates too much opportunity for abuse.
Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 relate to modifications. The Secretary of State can modify a warrant by adding an address or taking some away. Warrants should not be addresses to premises. They should relate to individuals. There is a danger that by adding an address to an existing warrant there could be an "after-the-event" cover-up. That is inappropriate.
Amendment No. 77 relates to the tribunal's consideration of a warrant and of complaints about the issue of a warrant and compensation arrangements. That


is important. Clause 7(9) is important. It defines a "relevant warrant" that can have the tribunal's consideration. It should be sufficient to specify the applicant in the warrant. That is the purpose of the amendment. The specified person should be allowed to complain to the tribunal. A person's address or an address with which he might be associated should not come into the question whether that person has a right to complain to the tribunal and whether the tribunal can consider the complaint.

Mr. Waddington: Amendment No. 21 has the effect of leaving out from the warrant addresses likely to be used by the person named in the warrant. Paragraph 10 of the White Paper issued in April 1980 made it clear that where a target of interception used or operated from more than one address or telephone number all the addresses or telephone numbers might be covered in one warrant. That has been the long-standing practice of successive Governments to which clause 3(1) (a) gives effect. The Government are not therefore seeking more powers than they and their predecessors have exercised in the past. We are following the previous practice precisely.
Once the Secretary of State has decided that it is necessary that a person should be targeted, it would be odd if one warrant did not cover more than one telephone. If there are two telephones in the same room that the target is expected to use, it is obviously appropriate that one warrant should apply to both. It would be extremely curious if that were not the result. The telephones may be different, but the considerations leading to the warrant and the use of the telephones are part and parcel of the same matter.
The provision which the amendment seeks to remove does not allow the Secretary of State any improper degree of flexibility. The address specified on the warrant, whether or not there is more than one, has to be
likely to be used for the transmission of communications to or from
the target.
There is a further serious objection to the amendment. It leaves the form of the clause 3(1) warrant open and the address is at large. A warrant is a requirement to intercept. As such, it must be precise in its effect. It is not something that the recipient can decide to obey in part or about which he can be left in any doubt as to what is to be done.
The warrant provides protection from the offence. Its extent must be carefully defined. It is difficult to see how it could be carefully defined if there was not included in the warrant the address to which the person to whom the warrant was addressed had to address his attention. There are a great many addresses there.
The Post Office and public telecommunication operators are fully entitled to know where they stand. If the amendment were carried, that position would be lost. The warrant would then name, for example, John Brown — whoever he may be—but no more. How on earth can the recipient translate that into action? Which telephone? Which address? Does it mean any telephone that John Brown happens to use or might use one day? The position would be nonsensical. For those reasons, I could not recommend the acceptance of the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment No. 22 substitutes in clause 3 "individual" for "person". The Government have repeatedly made it

clear that they seek no powers other than those which have been previously exercised. That principle applies in respect of the provisions which are the subject of this amendment, as it does elsewhere. Paragraph 10 of the 1980 White Paper made it clear that a warrant might be directed against a person or an organisation and hence the definition of "person" in clause 10. That is essential in the interests of national security and the fight against serious crime.
I shall give an example, which I do not believe is fanciful. A group of terrorists might be known to be operating and to be planning a major attack. It would be essential to take urgent steps to prevent that attack and the serious loss of life which could result. It could be that, although the group of terrorists had a name, its members were unknown. It would be manifestly absurd if it was impossible to undertake an interception of the group's communications simply because it had not yet been possible to put names to the members. Such considerations have also to be borne in mind.
The effect of amendment No. 23 would be to prevent the targeting of premises as distinct from the targeting of persons. In the Government's view, it is vital to retain that second capacity to target premises. A clause 3(1) warrant would—

Mr. Bermingham: Perhaps the Minister can help to reassure some of us who are worried about the targeting of premises, because it is a broad concept. We would be reassured if the Government or the Secretary of State said that, where targeting of a premises or complex was necessary, even greater care would be taken to limit the area to be targeted within the confines and parameters of national security.

Mr. Waddington: It is not possible to talk in terms of greater care. Of course, the machinery can never come into motion unless the Secretary of State has satisfied himself that it is necessary to target premises. Therefore, as a result of the restrictions that the Bill places on the circumstances in which he can issue a warrant in the first place, he must have regard to all those considerations and be satisfied that it is really necessary to issue a warrant targeting premises.
Naturally, a clause 3(1) warrant would normally be directed against a known person. It might be someone engaged in serious crime or a threat to national security, but sometimes the name or identity of the suspected person might not be known. That would be rare but it could happen. When it did, the successful pursuit of investigations might be of paramount importance.
Let me give an example which, again, I do not think is entirely fanciful. Information might be received that a terrorist as yet unidentified was in the country and preparing to assassinate a public figure. It might be known that he had arranged to receive communications at a particular place, but that might be all that was known. It could be that the interception of those communications was the only means of establishing precisely who the terrorist was, and the only means of identifying his associates and ensuring that the attack was prevented.
In those circumstances, the direction of a warrant against the premises in question would be the only means to achieve those ends. A warrant should certainly not be directed gratuitously against, for example, the person who happened to be the landlord of the premises. Therefore,


the effect of the amendment is to remove a vital capacity from those whose task it is to respond to such threats. The capacity to direct a warrant in that way is not new, but has been used by successive Governments in appropriate circumstances. It does not in any way represent a loosening of controls in the Bill. The Secretary of State must still consider that the interception is necessary on one of the specified statutory criteria. All the other conditions governing the warrant and all the safeguards apply with equal force.
Amendment No. 24 would remove clause 3(1)(b). One purpose of the warrant is to give protection to those who execute it and who, but for it, would commit the offence of interception. In the Government's view, there must be absolutely no doubt about that protection. Nobody can be asked to do something that could in any circumstances place him in jeopardy of committing the serious criminal offence that is established in clause 1.
Amendments Nos. 41, 43 and 77 are all consequential amendments; I do not think that I need trouble the Committee with them. They deal with the provisions of clause 5, as the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said, and the modification of warrants by the insertion or deletion of any address. However, we will be able to debate the power of modification later. At this stage we are dealing only with the issue whether there should be individuals or persons and whether there should be addresses. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I am discourteous if I treat the amendments as consequential.
In those circumstances, I cannot recommend any of the amendments to the Committee.

Mr. Cohen: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Mr. Clive Soley: I beg to move amendment No. 26 in page 3, line 1, leave out subsections (2) to (5).

The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 71, in clause 7, page 6, line 7, leave out from 'material' to end of line 8.

Mr. Soley: In a way, this is an exploratory amendment. We are puzzled by the fact that in clause 3(1) there is a fairly clear definition of the circumstances in which the interception will gain a warrant, but when we come to subsections (2) and (3), there seems to be a much more open, catch-all provision. Amendment No. 26 seeks to limit that power.
I am puzzled as to why subsections (2) to (5) are in the Bill unless they are directed entirely at terrorism. I have looked at the notes on clauses helpfully provided by the Government. I notice that a clause 3(2) warrant
cannot be used for the purpose of intercepting communications to or from a particular address in the British Islands, except where 3(3)(a) applies.
Clause 3(3)(a) relates to terrorism. I can envisage situations in which it may be necessary to intercept communications outside the United Kingdom or indeed to an address in the United Kingdom if, for example, there was an attempt to purchase arms to be used for a paramilitary activity within the United Kingdom. I can

understand that. However, I am not sure why the provision has been drafted so widely. Clause 3(2)(a) (ii) contains the phrase
such other communications (if any) as it is necessary to intercept".
I am troubled by that wording. What are we talking about when we say "other communications (if any)"? That seems to be a wide interpretation, which I do not quite understand. At this stage, I am asking the Government to explain why, having defined things fairly tightly in clause 3(1), they go on to open the whole thing up.
If I am right in assuming that the concept of terrorism and espionage is very much in the Government's mind, I should like to ask them to bear in mind that clause 3(3)(a) would relate only to detection of acts of terrorism. To the best of my knowledge an act of terrorism is still defined only in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. As we all know, that Act is supposed to be temporary. I wonder whether it would be assumed that the provision would come out of the Bill, when it became an Act, when the Prevention of Terrorism Act lapsed. Would that also imply that the whole of subsections (2) and (3) would come out? That is why I am having difficulty in understanding what the Government are trying to achieve. Perhaps they have a wider purpose in mind, such as espionage. However, I suspect that the main concept in the Government's mind is terrorism. I can understand that, but we should like the Government's purpose spelled out. I understand the notes on clauses provided by the Minister, but they do not fully explain why the Government have chosen to include subsections (2) and (3), which open up the area that has been fairly tightly defined in clause 3(1).

Mr. McWilliam: I make no complaint about the grouping of amendment No. 71 with amendment No. 26, but there is a different point to be made.
Amendment No. 71 relates specifically to the material intercepted. There seems to be a non sequitur in this respect. Clause 7 (5) (b) refers to
the destruction of copies of the intercepted material or, as the case may be, so much of it as is certified by the relevant certificate".
It seems strange that there is power to direct the destruction only of the material certified in the certificate and not of material not so specified. In other words, material relating to crime, subversion or whatever, must be destroyed, but innocuous material can apparently be kept for ever. Amendment No. 71 seeks to ensure that whatever else is destroyed the innocuous material is destroyed as well. I am sure that the position that I have described was not intended, but I see no other possible interpretation of the Bill as drafted.
Amendment No. 26 causes me some concern. Earlier I declared an interest as a sponsored Member for the National Communications Union. As an elected representative speaking in the Mother of Parliaments — in the bosom of representative Western democracy — it gives me no pleasure to consider the consequences of that provision. One can imagine a totalitarian regime intercepting all overseas communications as a matter of course.

Mr. Bermingham: The Americans do it too.

Mr. McWilliam: I have news for my hon. Friend. The Americans not only do it but process the material so intercepted. The idea of that happening here gives me no


pleasure. Such fishing expeditions are despicable. One might expect such practices to emanate from the Kremlin or from the worst type of South American dictatorship but they have no place in a free Western democracy.
I challenge the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box and explain why, as a matter of course, the Government wish to do this.
Nor do I absolve previous Governments, as the agreement with the Americans was made years ago. American National Security Agency computers actually analyse most of the raw material obtained from these fishing expeditions. I challenge the Home Secretary to tell us how the democracy of which we are so proud can exist when all citizens, innocent or otherwise, can be spied upon in this way if they dare to make an international telephone call to or from this country. The Home Secretary has a serious point to answer.
I do not wish to do anything that will interfere with our ability to detect international terrorism, but there is a matter of principle involved. Democratic Governments do not spy on their citizens as a matter of course. Authoritarian Governments do. It is up to the Home Secretary to tell us today whether he intends to stop the systematic interception of international communications once and for all and to show that this is a free democracy, where interception is directed only against individuals or premises when there is reasonable cause to believe that this is necessary. Will he do that, or will he try to dodge the issue and thus deny the freedom and democracy that we expect from British Governments of whatever political colour? I do not condone what has happened in the past. I accept that previous Labour and Conservative Governments have indulged in the same practice, but I find it entirely distasteful and it is time that it was stopped.

Mr. Maclennan: I tabled an amendment in exactly the same terms as amendment No. 26, as I was unaware at the time that that amendment had been tabled, for reasons very similar to those adduced by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley).

The Temporary Chairman: It is not quite the same. The hon. Gentleman's amendment did not go quite so far.

Mr. Maclennan: Its purpose was broadly similar — to elucidate the intentions behind subsections (2) to (5) of clause 3. This is an extremely opaque series of subsections. I am not sure whether that is deliberate. At any rate, this debate gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to explain the purpose of what on the face of it seems to be an all-embracing power which largely nullifies the restrictions in subsection (1).
It seems clear that the certificate procedure is not intended to be used in all circumstances. If it were, there would be no need for subsection (1). At this stage, I merely wish to show my interest in the Minister's explanation so that he will not be taken by surprise if I find it necessary to intervene again, should his comments not be sufficiently clear. I am sure, however, that he will provide a clear explanation.

9 pm

Mr. Brittan: I will do my best to respond to that challenge to clarity. The amendment was tabled in order to seek elucidation of the purpose of subsections (2) to (5)

of clause 3. It is true that the subsections derive historically from provisions that have been on the statute book and used for some time. However, as in the case of a number of other provisions in the Bill, the provisions narrow down and provide safeguards against the abuse of a power that is, I concede, wide when compared with anything that has previously existed. The provisions introduced important new safeguards into the interception of external communications. They represent a significant improvement.
Special arrangements have existed for many years governing the interception of international telecommunications. Section 4 of the Official Secrets Act 1920 provides for the Secretary of State power to require production of overseas telegrams sent to or from the United Kingdom if it appears to him that such a course is 
expedient in the public interest".
We believe that that power is cast in an unnecessarily wide form for today's conditions. It is fair to say, if one considers the history of the matter, that the Radcliffe report stated in 1967 that the powers under the 1920 Act had been regularly exercised since they came into force. I know that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) will understand that I can neither confirm nor deny the manner in which the powers have been exercised over the years. It is significant that, in the White Paper presented to Parliament in June 1967, the then Prime Minister, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, said in referring to the powers that the activities involved no element of prying into the private affairs of citizens. Such activities are in fact carefully controlled and confined. Lord Wilson refuted any notion that the Government might use the powers improperly.
In spite of that, the Government think that the language of section 4 of the 1920 Act is too wide, and that is why we have limited it in this legislation.

Mr. McWilliam: It may help the right hon. and learned Gentleman if I state categorically that the powers granted under the 1920 Act and other legislation have meant that as a matter of course all international telegrams, telexes and telephonic communications have been intercepted since that time. If the Home Secretary is telling us that the clause as drafted will curb that systematic interception, I for one will be heartily pleased.

Mr. Brittan: I do not propose to comment on the hon. Gentleman's statement in terms of fact, but I shall happily explain what the Bill does.
There are significant differences between the real safeguards surrounding interception in the present Bill and the wide powers granted under the 1920 Act. I will explain them. Through clause 11(5) of the Bill, section 4 of the 1920 Act is repealed. The Government believe that the interception of external communications should be subject to the same rigorous standards as other interception authorised under the terms of the Bill, and it is the purpose of clause 3(2) to (5) to achieve this aim.
Some provision is necessary. External threats to our society have greatly increased both in scope and in sophistication. It is widely and correctly understood that threats such as terrorism and espionage are organised at the international level. So is drug trafficking. Intercepting communications into and out of our country may offer the only means of identifying those involverd. The powers under the 1920 Act have helped to offer protection against


such people and have produced secret intelligence necessary to defend our national security at the international level.
I believe that in a suitable form the powers are as necessary now as they have been in the past. The proposal therefore is a carefully formulated provision subject to all the safeguards in the Bill so that the interception of external telecommunications for limited purposes may continue in a fashion which is appropriate.
The effect of clause 3(2) is to secure the personal control of the Secretary of State over the interception of external telecommunications in a detailed fashion. This must he done differently from how it is done in the case of individual warrants. In addition to the warrants—this is the key to it — the Secretary of State must issue a certificate under his own hand which sets out the description of intercepted material which he considers necessary for one or more of the purposes set out in clause 2(2). In other words, whereas in the 1920 Act all that was necessary was that it had to appear to him to be expedient in the public interest — and not even necessary in the public interest — under this Bill the Secretary of State has to issue a certificate in addition to the warrant, certifying the descriptions of intercepted material, the examination of which he considers necessary. It is the warrant that permits the interception and the certificate that gives the descriptions of the intercepted material which he considers it necessary to examine. The criteria are those in clause 2(2).
Therefore, in all senses the test is much more stringent than that in the 1920 Act.
It is a further important safeguard provided by clause 3(3) that the Secretary of State may not specify
an address in the British Islands
in his certificate, although there is one exception. In other words, under the powers to intercept external communications, which are exercised by the warrant, there has to be, accompanying the warrant, a description of the intercepted material, the examination of which is necessary. But one limitation is that there cannot be a specific address, except in the circumstances of clause 3(3), which is, of course, the exception in the case of terrorism.
Terrorism poses very special dangers and the great sophistication and degree of organisation of those involved in it means that those responsible for preventing and detecting such outrages must be able to use reasonable means in order to do so. Therefore, there is a distinction. Clause 3(1) says that for domestic matters, the individual warrant under subsection (1) is the appropriate one. Clause 3(2) prescribes for the interception of external communications, buttressing the warrant that is not individually targeted, except where that may happen under the provisions of clause 3(3), with the certificate that the Secretary of State has to issue certifying the descriptions of material that has to be examined.
I hope, having explained the working of clause 3, that the aim of amendment No. 71 will be more apparent.

Mr. Soley: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brittan: Perhaps I could first finish my explanation, which is related to the point made by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam). I think that I can clear that up. Clause 7 deals with the powers of the tribunal. If one thinks of it first in relation to an ordinary domestic warrant issued, say, for crime purposes, one of

the powers that the tribunal has is to direct the destruction of copies of the intercepted material. It should be remembered that the situation envisaged is that the tribunal finds that a warrant has been improperly issued or, in other words, that the interception has been lawful but that the Secretary of State should not have issued the warrant. It is in those circumstances that the tribunal can direct the destruction of copies of the intercepted material, which is to say the material that has been intercepted pursuant to a warrant.
When one is talking about the exercise of the power in relation to external communications, one has to consider a situation in which there is both a warrant and a certificate and the material that is actually examined, as opposed to intercepted, is only that of a character described in the certificate. That may be less than that covered by the warrant. That is why there is reference to "so much of it"—that is, the intercepted material—
as is certified by the relevant certificate".
It is only the material that is certified by the relevant certificate that has been lawfully intercepted. The warrant and the certificate go hand in hand.
The job of the tribunal is to make orders in relation to lawful interception, but interception which it finds to be improper in the sense of not having been reasonably ordered by the Secretary of State. If we refer to material that has been examined which is not covered by the certificate, that is not an area for the tribunal to consider. It will not be material that is covered by clause 3(2). It will have the warrant but not the certificate applied to it.
I hope that that explains the ambit and rationale of clause 3. If the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) thinks it is wrong that a power which has been exercised by successive Governments since 1920 should exist, I cannot pretend that the Bill will remove it. If, however, he favours a more restrictive use of the power, limited and confined in a way that it has not been limited and confined since 1920, and supervised both by the commissioner, in terms of the general exercise of the power, and by the tribunal in dealing with particular complaints against abuse of the power, I think that as a fair-minded person he will agree that the measure we have introduced provides a limitation which no Government since 1920 have thought it proper to provide.

Mr. Maclennan: The powers of exposition of the Home Secretary are considerable. He has thrown some light on the meaning of subsections (2) to (5), but I remain a little puzzled. Part of the difficulty I have in comprehending this clause flows from what I believe he described as the fact that the certificate and the warrant go hand in hand. The certificate must describe what is called intercepted material. I find this confusing. The power to intercept requires the issuance of a warrant and at the same time the issuance of a certificate. If so, I do not see how the material can be referred to in the past participle as "intercepted". It is possible that a drafting improvement can be made. If I have misunderstood the point, I shall be only too delighted to be corrected. If the Secretary of State issues a warrant accompanied by a certificate, is it also the case that he must know what material it is that he is requiring to be examined? Is it in some way a fishing expedition? Subsection (2)(b) refers to
a certificate certifying the descriptions of intercepted material, the examination of which he considers necessary 


It appears from that wording that the material is already in some way in his possession. How can that be so if the warrant and the certificate have to be issued at the same time?

Mr. Bermingham: If I have understood the Home Secretary correctly, a great limitation has been placed upon the role of section 4 of the Official Secrets Act 1920. It was a catch-all section which enabled everything to be intercepted and used. There was no limitation or regulation. If I understood the Home Secretary correctly, he said that the warrant will still exist and that international calls will still be trawled but that a limitation will be placed upon the use of interception. If it is to be used, a certificate will have to be granted setting out the nature of terrorist and other criminal activities that need to be investigated. That will be the only area in this vast field of material that it will be possible to look at. If that is so, it is a significant retreat from the 1920 position, which I and many of my hon. Friends would welcome.

Mr. Brittan: Again, the Committee will understand why I can neither confirm nor deny anything that is said about what has or has not been done in the past. Let me put it this way. The concept that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) had in mind is broadly correct. One is talking in terms of a warrant which is limited in that it has to be covered by the criteria in clause 2(2) which may be a broad ambit. It is not unlimited. It must be a warrant that can properly be issued having regard to clause 2(2).
The question then is that not all that material — it is perhaps easiest to think of it in terms of telegrams — need to be examined. The material, the examination of which is considered necessary, must be certified. It may be that for the purposes of issuing a warrant one can only properly specify a larger group than the narrower group that it is considered, and ought to be considered, should be examined. I hope that that explains the situation. There is no doubt that that is a tighter control than the wide one of the 1920 Act, but I would not want the hon. Gentleman to think that it removes the power to intercept external communications on a substantial scale as defined by the sub-paragraphs.

Mr. Soley: This has been a useful if short debate. I noted the Home Secretary's comments earlier when he drew attention to the restriction on what had previously been in the 1920 Act relating to the word "expedient". I have never liked the word "expedient" in such Acts, so I welcome that.
We shall have to look carefully at the record of this debate. There are important implications in respect of the 1920 Act which we shall need to think through.
There are two areas which the Home Secretary did not clear up. He may wish to say a little more now or come back to the matter on Report when we have read his comments in Hansard. I am still not clear about clause 3(2)(a) (ii) and the comment:
such other communications (if any)".
The other point that I raised concerns the temporary nature of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. If the Home Secretary accepts that clause 3(2)(a) applies only to the Prevention of Terrorism

(Temporary Provisions) Act, because that is how it is defined, there is something to be said for putting in that subsection, as defined by the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, which is the only definition that we have on the statute book. That would almost automatically imply that that part of the Bill would fall when the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act was finally repealed or lapsed.

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Solely) for reminding me that I failed to deal with those two particular points. Subsection (2)(a)(ii) is simply the counterpart of the external communications warrant of subsection (1)(b).
If the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act were to be found to be no longer necessary and it were to be repealed, it would be perfectly possible to retain the definition of terrorism for the purposes of that Act as being that which applies in the case of this Act which would remain on the statute book. I do not think that there would be any great difficulty in doing that if it were necessary, but that does not arise at the moment. It would simply be a question of appropriate drafting if that is what was wanted.

Mr. Soley: My understanding is that the only definition on the statute book is that contained in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. If that Act lapses, one would still have on the statute book the reference to the prevention of terrorism as provided in this Bill. The definition used would thus be much wider than that presently contained in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act.

Mr. Brittan: If that anxiety proved to be real, it would be possible not just to allow the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act to lapse, but to enact repeal legislation which would retain the definition for the purpose of terrorism under this Bill if that is what some future Parliament wished to do. I do not say that that is what one would do. I say merely that it is a course that readily occurs to one as being possible.

Mr. Soley: We will consider carefully the report of the debate, including the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), who made a powerful speech, and will come back if necessary on Report.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

ISSUE AND DURATION OF WARRANTS

Mr. Bermingham: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 3, line 33, leave out 'the Secretary of State' and insert 'a Secretary of State designated by the Prime Minister'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 30, in page 3, line 33, leave out from 'State' to end of line 37.
Government amendments Nos. 31 and 45.
No. 46, in page 4, line 32, leave out from 'State' to end of line 38.
Government amendment No. 47.

Mr. Bermingham: In moving amendment No. 29, I ask the Committee to consider the Government amendments which go part of the way to meet the point that we sought to raise in amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 46.
The amendments would eliminate the possibility of civil servants authorising or modifying warrants for interception. This would prevent civil servants from having to make what might appear to be political decisions. This situation arises when a Government changes and there is an interregnum state. The Secretary of State as the person authorised is a continuing creature, in that Secretaries of State never die but hand over to each other, but Governments do change, so we have sought to cover the intervening period. I am in the happy position of noting the Government amendments included for consideration in this group of amendments. The wording of amendment No. 45 is slightly different from that of amendment No. 31. Amendment No. 31 fortunately takes us almost all the way down the road that our amendment sought to follow. In amendment No. 31 provision is made whereby
the Secretary of State has expressly authorised its issue and a statement of that fact is endorsed thereon, under the hand of an official of his department of or above the rank of Assistant Under Secretary of State".
I suggest that that is a high enough rank, and I do not wish to see it percolating any lower down. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will be satisfied with the amendment.
I wish to raise one small point on amendment No. 45. Government amendment No. 45 is similar to Government amendment No. 31, except that the former includes the words:
under the hand of a person holding office under the Crown".
Those are words that we are seeking to delete from clause 4. In other words, whereas we are seeking to remove confusion, the Government—though I concede that they are going part of the way with us in our attempt to clarify the situation and to avoid civil servants being put in the position of appearing to take political decisions — are muddying the waters again by the wording of amendment No. 45. I hope that between now and a later stage of the Bill the Minister will consider my comments, especially about the way in which amendment No. 45 appears to reinstate in clause 5 that which we are seeking to remove from clause 4.

Mr. Waddington: The White Paper published on 7 February 1985 explained which Secretaries of State were responsible for the issue of warrants, namely, the Home and Foreign Secretaries and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland. Those responsible for issue are, of course, responsible for everything else to do with warrants, such as their renewal and the oversight of all associated arrangements.
It has been made clear that no Secretaries of State other than those referred to in the White Paper carry out those responsibilities, and it is not the intention of the Government, any more than of their predecessors, that any Minister holding the office of Secretary of State should have the same responsibilities as the four Secretaries of State named.
The designation of Secretaries of State, as the amendment proposes, is therefore unnecessary. Nor would it have any precise effect. The designation in terms of the amendment would be at the discretion of the Prime Minister. If it were the Government's intention—which it is not — to involve a wider circle of Secretaries of

State in matters to do with warrants, the Prime Minister could freely designate whichever such Ministers were thought appropriate. In other words, designation in itself does nothing to limit the number of Secretaries of State.
I hope that Government amendments Nos. 31, 45 and 47 meet the concerns that have been expressed about emergency provisions. No. 31 retains the principle of an urgency procedure. This is essential, and, for that reason, we could not accept amendment No. 30. Occasions may arise when it is vital for effect to be given to an interception warrant at short notice. It would not be appropriate to give examples of where that has happened, but hon. Members may be assured that it does happen.
Information might be obtained on a Saturday night pointing to the need to intercept to prevent a terrorist attack the next day. It would be absurd if the police were deprived of the opportunity of preventing the crime simply because it was a Saturday night and because the time taken to open an office, prepare a warrant and take is to the Secretary of State would be too lengthy. The Government believe without the slightest qualification that in circumstances such as these it must be possible to issue a warrant at short notice. Indeed, it would be irresponsible not to provide for this situation, for which, as the 1980 White Paper indicates, there has long been provision.
The Government equally accept that there must be no derogation from the principle that it is the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State alone who takes the decision. In no circumstances whatsover should this vital decision be capable of delegation to anybody else, he it another Minister in the same Department or an official. Personal control by the Secretary of State is at the heart of the whole statutory scheme.
The principle behind the urgency procedure in the present clause 4(1)(b), and also behind that provision as it would be changed by this amendment, is to reconcile these two requirements. This is achieved by requiring that the Secretary of State himself take the decision and that in an urgent case, having taken it, he can expressly authorise an official who can quickly gain access to the office to sign the warrant. The amendment will have this effect. There will remain an urgency procedure. The Secretary of State will be required personally to take the decision. Where he has done so, an official of the rank of at least Assistant Under-Secretary in his own Department will be able to sign the warrant but will be required to endorse on it the fact that the Secretary of State has authorised its issue. In this way the whole process is not merely associated with the Secretary of State but is kept in the hands of a very senior official. The Government entirely accept that this additional limitation is appropriate.
It is important to understand this provision against the provision in clause 4(6)(b). The effect of this is that a warrant issued under the urgency procedure lasts for only two working days following the day on which it is issued. If it is not then renewed by the Secretary of State over his own hand, there being no delegation of signature to an official in the case of renewal, the warrant lapses. This is a further very tight control on the urgency procedure which the Government believe meets the proper expectation of high standards and also sensibly allows for the submission of a proper application to the Secretary of State, who might, for example, have been out of London on Government business.
There are then similar urgency provisions as far as modification of warrants is concerned. Modification — this meets the point made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) — does not mean changing the person or the set of premises against which the warrant is directed; it deals only with the insertion or deletion of a particular address. Modification is therefore different from issue in that it is concerned with giving precise practical effect to a substantive decision which has already been taken to issue a warrant.
The arrangements in clause 5 reflect this difference and the need to include new addresses in a warrant at short notice as, for instance, track is kept of the movements of a suspected terrorist and he reveals his plans as to where he might next make a call.
Amendment No. 45 now seeks to introduce into clause 5 an equivalent provision to that which Government amendment No. 31 has introduced into clause 4. Where there is need for a very urgent modification of a warrant in respect of which the Secretary of State has given no authorisation as set out in the present clause 5(4)(b)—5(4) (a) in the amendment—then application must be made to him personally. Just as with issue, that decision may need to be taken at a time when the Secretary of State is absent from London and the office is closed. If the Secretary of State agrees to the modification, the amendment requires an official in his Department of at least Assistant Under-Secretary rank to make the modification.
It is in those circumstances that I commend Government amendments Nos. 31, 45 and 47 to the Committee. I hope that the Opposition will think it right to withdraw amendments Nos. 29 and 30.

Mr. Bermingham: I tend to agree with the Minister that the necessary procedures need to be there in order to modify and to issue warrants in emergencies, when it is not always possible to get the Secretary of State himself. I believe that the safeguards now being built into the Act are necessary.
In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 3, line 34, leave out from 'case' to end of line 37 and insert
'where the Secretary of State has expressly authorised its issue and a statement of that fact is endorsed thereon, under the hand of an official of his department of or above the rank of Assistant Under Secretary of State'.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Mr. Soley: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 3, line 42, at end insert—
'(4) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to review whether a warrant continues to be necessary as mentioned in section 2(2) above before the expiry of one month from the issue of that warrant.'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 36, in page 3, line 42, at end insert—
'(3A) The renewal of a warrant shall be for a period not greater than the period for which it was originally issued.'.
No. 38, in page 4, line 8, leave out 'six' and insert `two'.
No. 39, in page 4, line 8, leave out 'six' and insert 'three'.

Mr. Soley: To satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who is about to leave the Chamber, I shall break with tradition and stand up to move this amendment.
We come now to the important matter of the issue and duration of warrants. Following some constructive discussion betweem my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), myself and the Home Secretary, I hope that the Minister will feel able to go some way towards meeting the amendment.
We seek to restrict the time that the warrant may last from the proposed six months to two months, which would bring it into line with the guidance in the 1980 White Paper. It is an important matter. As the Minister said earlier, it is important not least because, unlike search warrants, warrants to intercept are a covert activity — one does not necessarily know that one has been tapped, even after the event. Therefore, the duration of a warrant is extremely important. We are anxious to keep the duration under tight control. If the Minister agrees to replace the six months' provision with two months, that will be welcomed by all.
Amendment No. 35 seeks to restore one of the safeguards of the 1980 White Paper, which is to have an obligatory monthly review of existing warrants.
Amendment No. 36 would ensure that the Secretary of State could not renew a warrant for longer than the period for which it was originally issued. That is a self-evident safeguard that appears to have been omitted from the Bill.

Mr. Waddington: The Government have made it clear from the beginning that they were not seeking either powers or practices that were not already available and exercised by them or their predecessors. That principle has underpinned the formulation of the Bill. The intention of the provision in clause 4(6)(a) is to establish a sensible framework within which existing practices might continue. The six months' duration of a warrant is a maximum — a warrant does not have to last that long. The Secretary of State can revoke or renew it at any stage during its validity, but six months is the longest period that a warrant may last, as will be seen from the 1980 White Paper.
It has not been the Government's intention that all warrants automatically should last for that period, irrespective of existing practices or the circumstances of individual cases. However, the Government accept that, as drafted, the Bill confers the theoretical power to allow some warrants to last longer than they currently last. The Government accept that that position may give rise to misunderstanding, so they will table an amendment to incorporate the 1980 White Paper arrangement in a way appropriate for application in the Bill.
In those circumstances the Government, while bound to resist the amendments, hope that they will be withdrawn.
The 1980 White Paper arrangements were framed in terms of the authority from whom the application came. That is not appropriate to put on the face of the Bill. The Government's proposed amendment will, therefore, specify that, as in 1980, all warrants on first issue should be valid for a period not exceeding two months. Thereafter, warrants issued for the prevention or detection of serious crime will fall to be renewed every month. Warrants issued on either of the two other criteria —


national security and the country's economic well-being — will fall to be renewed every six months. This arrangement is consistent with the scheme described in 1980 and reflects the fact that investigations relating to serious crime are, by their nature, related to particular events and that it is right to reassess the situation at relatively short intervals.
Warrants related to national security are likely to be of longer standing — for example, because of the acute difficulties of obtaining vital intelligence about terrorist groups. The Government cannot, therefore, accept the proposition in amendment No. 36.
If after two months the Secretary of State has established a real and continuing need for the interception in question, he should be able to place it in future, as he has in the past, on a suitable basis and to have to renew it every six months. He should not have to undertake a perfunctory renewal at more frequent intervals than the circumstances make appropriate. The requirement will, of course, remain that he must cancel a warrant if he considers that it is no longer necessary.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister has made a helpful speech which must satisfy all those hon. Members who tabled amendments suggesting an alteration to the protracted period suggested in the Bill, which does not match the White Paper's recommendations. There was no obvious explanation for that length of time. I look forward to the Government's amendment and I shall not press mine.

Mr. Soley: The Government have made a significant and important concession to the Opposition. We have worked hard on our amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

MODIFICATION OF WARRANTS ETC.

Amendments made: No. 45, in page 4, leave out lines 32 to 38 and insert
'under the hand of the Secretary of State or, in an urgent case—

(a) under the hand of a person holding office under the Crown who is expressly authorised by the warrant or certificate to modify it on the Secretary of State's behalf; or
(b) where the Secretary of State has expressly authorised the modification and a statement of that fact is endorsed on the instrument, under the hand of such an officer as is mentioned in section 4(1)(b) above.'.

No. 47, in page 4, line 39, after '(4)', insert `(a) or'. —[Mr. Waddington.]

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

SAFEGUARDS

Mr. Bermingham: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 5, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

`(b) that intercepted material relating to a privileged communication or not relating to the individual named in the warrent is destroyed.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 53, in page 5, line 23, at end add

'and any material which proves to be irrelevant to the investigation for the purposes of which the warrant is issued is destroyed forthwith'.
No. 114, in clause 10, page 9, line 11, at end insert—
privileged communication" means a communication concerning an individual which is:

(a) subject to legal privilege; or
(b) relates to medical treatment; or
(c) relates to an individual's physical or mental health; or
(d) to spiritual counselling or assistance given to him; or
(e) to counselling or assistance given to him for the purposes of his personal welfare by a voluntary organisation or individual who

(i) by reason of his office or occupation has responsibilities for his personal welfare; or
(ii) by reason of an order of the court has responsibilities for his supervision.

(f) relates to journalistic material which a person holds in confidence.'.

Mr. Bermingham: The amendments deal with privileged material. The official Opposition originally tabled amendments to deal with the subject. Amendment No. 51 inserts a new paragraph to ensure
that intercepted material relating to a privileged communication or not relating to the individual named in the warrant is destroyed.
I ask the Committee to cast its mind back to a debate earlier this evening, when we discussed international interceptions. It became apparent that in any trawl exercise and in any interception, especially if it was taking place in a block of properties or at a place where there was more than one form of telecommunication instrument and more than one source of information, it was more than feasible that among the information obtained would be much material that would not be relevant to the person named in the warrant, to the matter which was the subject of the interception or to the warrant itself.
9.45 pm
The term "privileged communication" would include conversations between a man and his lawyer, for example, or conversations between a man or woman and his or her doctor. There will be occasions when the interception will gather conversations of this character. These conversations are subject to what is known as legal privilege. Also included in this category is medical treatment, an individual's physical or mental health, spiritual counselling or assistance that is given when someone telephones a clergyman. That sort of material is not usable, because it is privileged.
In the circumstances that I have outlined, as in the other circumstances that are set out in amendments Nos. 53 and 114, I am seeking to write into the Bill a provision that ensures that when privileged material is collected it is destroyed. This material will have no material, evidential or probative value. I am seeking to amend the Bill so that it provides that such material will be destroyed.
I recognise that interception is necessary in dealing with large-scale crime, especially that involving the drugs trade and terrorism. Many other major investigations have to take place in the interests of domestic security and international security. Material will be gathered in the course of these investigations which will not relate to the person or corporate body who or which is directly concerned. I know of cases in which the "person" who was at the centre of the criminality was a limited company or a partnership. In such circumstances, I accept that the trawl and gleaning of information will gather information which is extraneous to that "person". I am merely asking


in the amendment that that material will be destroyed. I am not asking for it to be given to anyone else. I am merely asking for it to be destroyed and for a relevant provision to be written into the Bill.
I recognise that the Minister may not like the wording of my amendment. However, if he takes on board the concept that lies behind it, which is that extraneous material or privileged material should be destroyed, and says that it should be redrawn, I shall not mind in the slightest. I am always happy to have my amendments redrawn if they are accepted in spirit.

Mr. Maclennan: I shall address myself to amendment No. 53. It deals with warrants which are issued by mistake against the wrong person or address, or those which name the correct person but where material has been intercepted which is irrelevant. In those circumstances, there is no obligation on the authorities to destroy any material or copies of it. The tribunal may order the destruction of copies only if contravention has been proved under clause 7(5)(b). The purpose of the amendment is to incorporate into ordinary warrants the same safeguards that apply to certified material in clause 6(1)(b).

Mr. Waddington: Clause 6 requires the Secretary of State to establish comprehensive arrangements for safeguarding intercepted material. The purposes that these arrangements have to secure are listed in subsection 2. They mean that only relevant portions of intercepted material may be disclosed or copied, that such material as is disclosed may go only to the minimum necessary number of people, that only the minimum necessary number of copies may be made of those portions that are disclosed, and that the material may be kept only for the minimum necessary period. These requirements must be read together. They impose a comprehensive limitation on what may be done with intercepted material.
The question is, therefore, about the relevance of amendment No. 53, given these comprehensive arrangements. It is clear from the terms of these arrangements — the review of which is expressly made one of the tasks of the commissioner—that gratuitous information touching on privileged communications, in the sense defined in amendment No. 114 to clause 10, would not normally fall to be disclosed, copied or retained — in other words, the arrangements already address the issue in a different way.
It was made clear in, for example, the 1980 White Paper, and subsequently in Lord Diplock's first report as monitor, that irrelevant material is not used. This irrelevant material goes much wider than the aspects covered under the term "privileged". Clearly, while intercepting the telephone line of a serious criminal, there will be no means of avoiding the interception of irrelevant and personal calls made on the line by members of his family. That point is accepted, and reference was made to it as an unavoidable consequence as long ago as the Birkett report. The clause 6 arrangements ensure that this type of material, just as with so-called privileged material, is not used. In that sense, the amendment is unnecessary.
The amendment also contains an element of unreality which, in rare cases, means that its incorporation in the Bill would have serious adverse consequences for national security or the investigation of crime. I shall illustrate that by giving a few examples. Few, if any, telephone

conversations are exclusively about one subject. Things are not like that. Although it is entirely accepted and understood that legally privileged material must be properly safeguarded, there is no means of disentangling what is privileged from what is not.
Let us suppose that a suspected terrorist whose telephone was being properly intercepted, telephones his lawyer to discuss a case. What if the suspected terrorist declined an invitation to a meeting the following day on the ground that he was seeing some friends in some named foreign city? That might be the vital clue for which officers were waiting and might enable the whole gang to be arrested. Yet that information emerged during discussion about legal proceedings. Clearly it would be irresponsible not to act on it.
What if a journalist were telephoned by a terrorist whose line was tapped and he were told that something big would happen the next morning at a specified place which the journalist would like to see? It might be hoped that the journalist would pass such a clue to the police. If, for whatever reason, the journalist failed to do so, that telephone conversation — undoubtedly caught by the definition — would be the vital clue that could save lives. It would be patently absurd to require the destruction of that information.
Equally unrealistic is the suggestion that information not related to the individual named in the warrant should be destroyed. What if a warrant were directed towards one bank robber called Smith who was telephoned by his friend, a jewel thief called Jones, who revealed that he would be committing a crime unconnected with Smith and banks? Clearly the police should not have to throw away that information simply because Smith was the name on the warrant.
We agree with the spirit of amendment No. 53, which was supported by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). One aspect, however, makes the amendment unacceptable. This point is similar to one I made earlier. During an interception to prevent a major robbery, information could be obtained about an unconnected crime. It would be strange if that information had to be immediately destroyed. That is clearly an unacceptable consequence. Warrants are rightly directed to a purpose, but clearly information thereby gained which could save lives or prevent injury should not be thrown away, as would have to be the case if the amendment were accepted. In those circumstances, I invite the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) to withdraw amendment No. 51; otherwise, I must invite the Committee to reject it.

Mr. Bermingham: I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. If I understand him correctly — if he nods I shall know that I do — if we do not use the material we destroy it. I fully understand the examples given. In the course of a telephone conversation other matters may be mentioned, some of which may be privileged and some of which may be clues as to where the next "job" or crime will be committed. I fully understand why such information is kept. I should be horrified if it were not. If the vast amount of irrelevant or privileged material gleaned in the course of an interception is disposed of and not used, I am content to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Maclennan: I was grateful to the Minister for agreeing—

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. May I ask for your guidance? If my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) seeks leave to withdraw the amendment and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) then speaks, does it not vitiate my hon. Friend's right to withdraw?

The Chairman: In Committee if any hon. Member seeks to address the Committee he has the right to do so.

Mr. Maclennan: rose—

Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. I always understood that in Committee once a Member moving an amendment sought leave to withdraw it, his application to withdraw was then taken and refused or accepted. If it is accepted, the subject is closed. If it is refused, the debate continues open-ended and the matter has to be put to the vote.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is wrong. If, that hon. Member having sought leave to withdraw the amendment, another hon. Member wishes to speak, he has the right to do so if there is an objection to the withdrawal of the amendment.

Mr. Maclennan: I wish to advert to the Minister's comments about amendment No. 53. If the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was seeking to muzzle me he would not be performing a useful service to the Committee. It is necessary to clarify the Minister's response to amendment No. 53. He said that he accepted the spirit in which the amendment was moved and agreed with its purpose. He considered that it was defectively drafted in that it required the irrelevant material to be destroyed forthwith which might preclude the possible use of material which could prove to be of some value. If he takes exception to the immediate destruction of material which is irrelevant for the purpose for which the warrant is issued, will he reconsider the matter to see whether it would be possible to bring forward words which incorporate the spirit to which he assented?

Mr. Waddington: Perhaps I spoke too quickly. Let me put the position absolutely plainly. If one looks at clause 6, one finds that the requirements that have to be satisfied in relation to any intercepted material are set out, and, of course, the most important matter is contained in the very last few words of the clause. One cannot keep copies; one cannot do any of the things set out in clause 6(2) except
the minimum that is necessary as mentioned in section 2(2)".
Therefore, if one collects information as a result of the proper execution of a warrant, that material has to be dealt with as a result of the Home Secretary making arrangements under clause 6, but the trouble with the amendment is that it refers to material—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Interception of Communications Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Bill again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Waddington: The trouble with the amendment supported by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is that it refers to

material which proves to be irrelevant to the investigation for the purposes for which the warrant is issued".
The difficulty is that one might have a perfectly properly executed warrant, and as a result of the execution of that warrant material is collected which is in fact perfectly relevant information, although it is not information that bears on the investigation for the purposes of which the warrant was issued.
I gave the example of the warrant against the bank robber. When it is executed, there is a telephone conversation, which is tapped, between the bank robber and the jewel thief. It would be absurd if, in those circumstances, there had to be immediate destruction of information given by the jewel thief to the effect that he was going to break into a jeweller's shop the following morning.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

THE TRIBUNAL

Mr. Kevin Barron: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 5, line 33, at end insert—
'(a) whether interception has taken place.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 58, in page 5, line 38, leave out '2' and insert '1'.
No. 59, in page 5, line 38, leave out '5' and insert '6'.
No. 62, in page 5, line 40, leave out '2' and insert '1'.
No. 55, in page 5, line 40, leave out from '5' to 'they' in line 41.
No. 63, in page 5, line 41, after 'certificate', insert
'or that there is evidence that an offence under section 1 above has been committed'.
No. 67, in page 6, line 2, at end insert—
'(4A) If on an investigation the Tribunal concludes that there was no relevant warrant or certificate and it appears to them that an offence under section 1 above may have been committed, they shall—

(a) give notice to the applicant stating that conclusion; and
(b) make a report to the Secretary of State.'.

No. 72, in page 6, line 17, after 'been', insert 'no interception and'.
No. 73, in page 6, line 18, leave out '2' and insert '1'.
No. 74, in page 6, line 18, leave out '5' and insert '6'.
No. 75, in page 6, line 19, at end insert
'or that there is no evidence of any offence under section 1 having been committed as the case may be'.

Mr. Barron: I should like to draw attention to a bad flaw in the Bill. The amendment would oblige the tribunal to investigate whether an applicant had suffered interception. At present, the Bill makes the tribunal investigate only the Secretary of State's compliance with the bureacratic procedures that are required for interception, and fails to deal with the possibility of unauthorised interception. I am moving amendment No. 57 because my hon. Friends and I believe that the protection of the individual's civil liberties should be implicit in the Bill.
Amendment Nos. 62 and 73 are consequential. The idea is to bring in clause 1 so that the tribunal can inform an applicant who applies to the tribunal for investigation whether he has been the victim of improper interception.
If the amendments are passed, the tribunal will have to tell the applicant either that there has been a contravention


of clause 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 or that there has been no contravention. In the former case, it must mean that the applicant was intercepted when he should not have been—in other words, that the interception was unauthorised or should not have been authorised. In the latter case, the position is ambiguous. Either the applicant was never intercepted at all, which is the most likely explanation, or the interception was carried out under a properly authorised warrant. Thus, the suspected criminal or terrorist could not use the tribunal to check whether he was under interception.
I feel strongly that people should not have to be told when they are being properly intercepted, but the Bill should provide protection for individuals who are improperly intercepted. At present, there is insufficient protection. Amendment No. 57 and the consequential amendments are therefore necessary to protect the rights of the individual.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I wish to draw attention to amendments Nos. 58, 59, 67 and 74.
With regard to amendments Nos. 59 and 74, when the tribunal considers whether there has been a contravention, it should be able to examine the extent to which the safeguards in clause 6 have been observed. In the debate on 12 March, the Home Secretary gave an assurance that the tribunal would
determine whether the Secretary of State contravened the provisions of the Act". — [Official Report, 12 March 1985; Volume 75, c. 163.]
That should include consideration of compliance with clause 6. My point is as simple and straightforward as that.
As for amendment No. 67, it seems extraordinary that the tribunal can tell the applicant only if a warrant has been excercised in breach of the rules, but if no warrant was issued for the interception the applicant cannot be informed of that breach. I hope that the Government will recognise that obvious lacuna and undertake to amend the Bill accordingly.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Having listened to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), one has some sympathy with the person who believes that his telephone has been tapped when there is in fact no basis or justification for that claim. The hon. Gentleman's amendment, however, would allow to circumvent the effect of the tap on his affairs simply by making an inquiry. If there is no reply, he will know that his telephone has been tapped. Sadly, therefore, I do not believe tht it is possible for the tribunal to inquire into the situation described by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Waddington: The tribunal exists to provide a remedy in the case of wrongfully authorised interception. For the first time, it gives people a means of redress if the Secretary of State acts improperly in exercising his power to issue a warrant.
The question whether there has been unlawful interception, as distinct from improperly authorised interception, is a matter for the police and the prosecuting authorities. It is to them that people should go if they believe that there is evidence of an offence, and it is they who will investigate the allegation. It is wrong in principle for a quasi-judicial body such as the tribunal to trespass where others are responsible. The tribunal is not, and could not be, equipped to undertake the work of the police

in establishing whether an unlawful interception has taken place. The tribunal is a specially constituted body of five qualified people competent to review the exercise of the Secretary of State's functions. There is a world of difference between carrying out such a review and carrying out an investigation into whether a crime has been committed.
If, while carrying out its review, the tribunal suspected an offence, it would be in the same position as any responsible person. Whether it should advise the applicant that he could approach the police if he believed that there had been an offence, or should inform the prosecuting authorities or the police direct, would be a matter for the tribunal to decide.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, if it transpired during the tribunal's inquiries that no warrant whatsoever had been issued and that an unauthorised interception had taken place, that would be a serious breach of the law? Does he agree that the one person who certainly should be informed would be the victim of that unauthorised interception? It is all very well to talk about reporting the matter to the police, but if the Director of Public Prosecutions decided for some reason not to prosecute the person who had suffered would never be told that an interception had taken place. How can the hon. and learned Gentleman justify that?

Mr. Waddington: I do not say for a moment that the person concerned would never be told. It would indeed be an important matter if it came to the notice of the tribunal that there had been an unlawful interception. I said that the tribunal would act like any responsible person. It would be for the tribunal, as a responsible body, to decide whether in the circumstances it was right to inform the person direct or to inform the prosecuting authorities.
One need not tell a body such as the tribunal what it should do in such circumstances as might well arise. It would behave like any other responsible public body that might, during the course of its work, come across information suggesting that a criminal offence had been committed. It is obvious that only rarely would the tribunal know that there had been a criminal offence. If information came to its attention that tended to show that there might have been such an offence, it would behave like any other responsible public body.

Mr. Alex Carlile: In what circumstances would the tribunal be justified in not telling someone whose phone had been tapped without a warrant that that had occurred?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. and learned Gentleman is closing his mind to the function of the tribunal. It will not embark on some great investigation to find out whether there has been unlawful interception. It will be activated when someone tells it that he believes that the Secretary of State has not properly exercised his powers.
The hon. and learned Gentleman jumps to the conclusion that, having been activated in that way, the tribunal will come to the conclusion that a criminal offence has been committed. In that eventuality—which is not a very likely one — the tribunal would no doubt behave like a responsible body.
The tribunal is already required under amendment No. 67 to report to the Secretary of State, but I must remind the Committee that the Secretary of State is not concerned


with the investigation of alleged criminal offences. He cannot interfere in the proper investigation of offences by the police, and if he received reports that it was suspected that an offence had been committed, there is little that he could do with them.
The amendments referred to by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) seek to extend the tribunal's remit to the clause 6 safeguards. But clause 6 deals not with the act of interception itself or with the execution of the warrant but with what happens after interception. At the heart of the clause lies not a series of decisions by a particular person but an administrative system containing arrangements that the Secretary of State has either made or inherited.
The tribunal has been created to provide a remedy where a decision has been wrongly taken under the legislation. It has the job of looking into a particular decision. But this would not be the case if there was an application under clause 6. I think that the amendments reflect a misunderstanding of the respective roles of the tribunal and the commissioner. The tribunal concerns itself with the individual decisions of the Secretary of State, and does so on receipt of an application from an individual who may have been affected. The commissioner, on the other hand, undertakes a continuing review on his own initiative, and that review must involve clause 6 arrangements. That seems to be the right way of going about these matters.
In those circumstances, I cannot recommend the amendments to the Committee.

Mr. Barron: I thought for a minute that the Minister would accept amendment No. 57. At one stage I thought that he saw nothing wrong with it. I cannot for the life of me understand why he should say that the tribunal is a responsible body that would obviously tell someone if he was the victim of a wrongful interception, yet not want to accept the amendment. Why is the amendment unacceptable? If the Minister is worried about the wording, he could return to the House with better drafting at a later stage.
The Minister's remarks were very contradictory, and I can do nothing other than ask hon. Members to vote for the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 169, Noes 247.

Division No. 179]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bruce, Malcolm


Alton, David
Buchan, Norman


Anderson, Donald
Caborn, Richard


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Ashdown, Paddy
Campbell, Ian


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Canavan, Dennis


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Barnet, Guy
Cartwright, John


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Thomas


Beith, A. J.
Clay, Robert


Benn, Tony
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cohen, Harry


Boyes, Roland
Coleman, Donald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Cowans, Harry


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)





Craigen, J. M.
McNamara, Kevin


Crowther, Stan
McWilliam, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Martin, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Maxton, John


Deakins, Eric
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dewar, Donald
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Michie, William


Dobson, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dormand, Jack
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dubs, Alfred
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eadie, Alex
Nellist, David


Eastham, Ken
O'Brien, William


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
O'Neill, Martin


Ewing, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fatchett, Derek
Park, George


Faulds, Andrew
Parris, Matthew


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pike, Peter


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fisher, Mark
Prescott, John


Flannery, Martin
Randall, Stuart


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Redmond, M.


Foster, Derek
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Foulkes, George
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Robertson, George


Garrett, W. E.
Rooker, J. W.


George, Bruce
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Godman, Dr Norman
Rowlands, Ted


Gould, Bryan
Sedgemore, Brian


Gourlay, Harry
Sheerman, Barry


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hardy, Peter
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Haynes, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Home Robertson, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Howells, Geraint
Snape, Peter


Hoyle, Douglas
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Strang, Gavin


John, Brynmor
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Kennedy, Charles
Tinn, James


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Torney, Tom


Kirkwood, Archy
Wallace, James


Lambie, David
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lamond, James
Wareing, Robert


Leadbitter, Ted
Weetch, Ken


Leighton, Ronald
Welsh, Michael


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
White, James


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Wigley, Dafydd


Litherland, Robert
Wilson, Gordon


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Winnick, David


Loyden, Edward
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McCartney, Hugh
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh



McGuire, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Mr. Sean Hughes and


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Mr. Robin Corbett.


Maclennan, Robert





NOES


Adley, Robert
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Aitken, Jonathan
Batiste, Spencer


Alexander, Richard
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Ancram, Michael
Benyon, William


Arnold, Tom
Best, Keith


Ashby, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Aspinwall, Jack
Blackburn, John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bottomley, Peter


Baldry, Tony
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia






Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Heddle, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hickmet, Richard


Bright, Graham
Hicks, Robert


Brinton, Tim
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hordern, Peter


Browne, John
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Bruinvels, Peter
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hunter, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Irving, Charles


Butcher, John
Jackson, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Kilfedder, James A.


Carttiss, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cash, William
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Chapman, Sydney
Lang, Ian


Chope, Christopher
Lawrence, Ivan


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lester, Jim


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lightbown, David


Cockeram, Eric
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Colvin, Michael
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Conway, Derek
Lord, Michael


Coombs, Simon
Lyell, Nicholas


Cope, John
McCrindle, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Couchman, James
Macfarlane, Neil


Cranborne, Viscount
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Maclean, David John


Dickens, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
McQuarrie, Albert


Dover, Den
Major, John


Durant, Tony
Malins, Humfrey


Dykes, Hugh
Malone, Gerald


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Marlow, Antony


Eggar, Tim
Mather, Carol


Emery, Sir Peter
Maude, Hon Francis


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fallon, Michael
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Farr, Sir John
Merchant, Piers


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Forman, Nigel
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Forth, Eric
Miscampbell, Norman


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Fox, Marcus
Moate, Roger


Freeman, Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


Gale, Roger
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gorst, John
Moore, John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Gregory, Conal
Murphy, Christopher


Grist, Ian
Neale, Gerrard


Gummer, John Selwyn
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, John
Newton, Tony


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Normanton, Tom


Hayes, J.
Norris, Steven


Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranley


Hayward, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip





Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stokes, John


Osborn, Sir John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Ottaway, Richard
Sumberg, David


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Pattie, Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Terlezki, Stefan


Porter, Barry
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Portillo, Michael
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Powley, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thurnham, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rathbone, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Trippier, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Trotter, Neville


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Viggers, Peter


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Waddington, David


Rowe, Andrew
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Waldegrave, Hon William


Ryder, Richard
Walden, George


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Waller, Gary


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Ward, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Scott, Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Watson, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Watts, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wheeler, John


Shersby, Michael
Whitfield, John


Silvester, Fred
Whitney, Raymond


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Speller, Tony
Wolfson, Mark


Spence, John
Wood, Timothy


Spencer, Derek
Woodcock, Michael


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Robin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Steen, Anthony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stern, Michael



Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 60, in page 5, line 39, after 'Tribunal', insert
', applying the principles applicable on an application for judicial review,'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Supplementary Benefit

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move:
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1985, which were laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.
I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we discuss at the same time the following motion:
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Amendment Regulations 1985, which were laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.
Since I imagine that the main interest is in the first set of regulations concerned with board and lodging, it may be sensible for me to say a few words about the second set of regulations before turning to the board and lodging issue.
The second set of regulations concerns the relationship between statutory sick pay and supplementary benefit. The position here is simple. When statutory sick pay was introduced in April 1983 to replace national insurance sickness benefit for the first eight weeks of sickness in most cases, other than the unemployed and the self-employed, it was intended that it should be treated for supplementary benefit purposes in exactly the same way as the benefit it replaced, that is, fully taken into account. It was believed that that was what the law established, and it is on that basis that claims to supplementary benefit from those on statutory sick pay have been treated.
Recently, however, a social security commissioner's decision has called this into question by holding that statutory sick pay should be subject to the same £4 disregard as earnings for supplementary benefit purposes. The chief adjudication officer is to seek leave to appeal from this decision; so, to that extent, the precise state of the law may be subject to further clarification. Meanwhile, however, we have thought it right to bring forward this regulation to put the position beyond doubt for the future.
In my view, it is not merely contrary to policy and intention, but as a general rule also contrary to common sense that one income maintenance benefit whose costs are entirely met by the state should be partly disregarded for the purposes of assessing another income maintenance benefit whose costs are also entirely met by the state. In this case, the absurdity is magnified by the fact that national insurance sickness benefit continues to be taken into account in full, so that on the commissioner's ruling there would be two different applications of the supplementary benefit rules to people who are sick. I hope, therefore, that these regulations will command the support of both sides of the House.
If I have carried the House with me on that, it would, I think, be optimistic to expect the same degree of assent on the Government's proposals for board and lodging, to which I now turn. I hope, however, that there will be general agreement on the unsatisfactory working of the existing rules in recent years, and on the need for them to have been reviewed. I think the House is familiar with the expenditure figures. The total of expenditure on supplementary benefit on board and lodging has risen from around £60 million in 1979 to something approaching £600 million in 1984, both in the residential care sector and in the sector of ordinary board and lodging. The number of

people in receipt of these payments has risen in a somewhat comparable, though not precisely comparable, fashion.
The effects of this situation have been disturbing hon. Members on both sides and many people outside the House. There is clear evidence of a considerable degree of abuse and exploitation of the rules — of cartel-type activities driving up charges, of establishments catering exclusively for DHSS claimants because of the guaranteed occupancy levels and payments that they bring, of higher charges for people on benefit than for those who are not on benefit, of kickback payments from landlords to claimants and of charges set — this includes the residential care sector—solely by reference to limits and not on a normal financial basis.
Anyone who doubts the scale of the abuse in the ordinary board and lodging sector need only look at the flood of advertisements in the newspapers in some parts of the country. I have with me one from the Thanet Times — it is one of a dozen or more that I could quote — saying:
Accommodation at spacious home with all conveniences. DHSS fees arranged. All bedrooms have central heating, colour TV and tea-making facilities.
As I say, I could multiply that many times. But just as bad as the abuse and exploitation that have been going on is the fact that we have ended up with many tens of thousands of young people trapped in accommodation which they could not possibly afford if they were in work, and they are thus in a peculiar version of the unemployment trap. That, as I have said on many occasions, is doing no service to them or to the rest of the community.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I am sure that my hon. Friend will carry the House with him because of the depth of evidence of abuse that exists. Will he, however, comment on the serious situation facing the elderly chronic sick, many of them in private nursing homes, who cannot be accommodated in local authority homes? There is widespread concern about the plight of those people. What plans does my hon. Friend have for them?

Mr. Newton: I shall deal with the residential care and nursing home sectors, which raise some different issues, in due course.
It was in response to the growing evidence of this increasingly unsatisfactory situation that the Government acted last year to freeze the limits then in operation and subsequently to put to the Social Security Advisory Committee the proposals which, substantially modified in the light of the advice of that committee, have led to the regulations that the House is debating tonight.
Many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate and, with the leave of the House, I will respond as fully as I can at the end. Meanwhile, I shall not make the conventional ministerial speech, attempting to go into every detail of the regulations, but confine myself to the basic structure of what we propose.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Minister says that the proposals have been substantially modified as a result of the SSAC response, but will he nevertheless confirm that that committee has said that the current proposals are unacceptable?

Mr. Newton: That is an exaggeration by a long chalk of what the SSAC has said. It has made a number of


important points which we shall continue to take into account in monitoring the progress of charges under the regulations. The SSAC clearly acknowledged the need for something to be done about the problems that I have described. It made a number of suggestions and welcomed many of the changes that the Government have made in response to those suggestions and, as I said, we shall continue to take account of the committee's comments in monitoring progress.
The main element in what we are proposing is to lay down firm limits, set by Ministers, for particular kinds of accommodation, in some cases varied according to different parts of the country, and to substitute those firm limits for the existing thoroughly unsatisfactory position in which the local limits for board and lodging vary from £40 a week in some places to £110 in others; those for residential care homes vary from £55 a week in some cases to £220 in others; and those for nursing homes vary from £80 a week to £295. Those variations cannot be defended, and there are some other perverse effects in some cases, such as nursing home limits being lower than residential care limits.
We shall set limits, in the case of ordinary board and lodging, for each area at one of six standard rates ranging from £45 to £70 per week. Most will be set between £50 and £60. For this purpose, DHSS officers will be grouped to take account of Department of Employment travel-to-work areas so as to reflect as far as possible established accommodation, employment and travelling patterns.
Subject to those limits, there will be no further restrictions on anyone aged 26 or over, but for those aged 25 or under, unless they are in an exempt category, each of those areas will have a limit of two, four or eight weeks as a boarder, after which the non-householder rate will normally apply. For those 25 or under there will be exemptions from those time limits which will include anyone with a dependent child or in other defined categories, such as living in a hostel, being pregnant, sick, mentally or physically handicapped, having been in residence in the same accommodation for six months while employed or placed there under the guidance of a public authority.
I want to re-emphasise that, as I have already implied, there are special provisions for hostels, to which the Government attach very great importance. They are treated as a separate category — previously they came within the ordinary board and lodging definition — and will have a limit set at £70 nationally. There will be no restrictions on stay for people in hostels.
Coming to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) concerning residential care and nursing homes, here we have set limits at a level which we believe will allow reasonable charges to be made in homes meeting the new registration arrangements under the Registered Homes Act 1984. Those limits, which I outlined to the House a couple of weeks ago but will repeat now, are as follows: residental care homes for the elderly, £110 a week; residential care homes for the mentally ill, £120 a week; residential care homes for drug and alcohol misuse, £120 a week; residential care homes for the mentally handicapped, £140 a week; and residential care homes for those who became physically disabled below pension age, £170 a week.
A sum equivalent to the higher rate of attendance, which is at present £28·60, will be added to the limit for nursing homes. In line with the Social Security Advisory Committee's recommendation, we are introducing an additional category for hospices catering for the terminally ill, with a maximum limit of £198·60 a week.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Minister not recognise that there is a potentially dangerous anomaly arising from the fact that the attendance allowance cannot be given as an addition to the £110 for residential care homes for the elderly? If elderly people who deserve and get any attendance allowance have gone into hospitals, there will be a tendency for those residential care homes not to want them to come back and there will be growing pressure on the hospitals with geriatric beds?

Mr. Newton: I am not quite sure that I follow the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, because attendance allowance is not payable in any event to those in hospital. Nor has it been payable to those in local authority homes, but only to those in private and voluntary homes. It has been widely recognised that that is anomalous. Indeed, this is one of the proposals that was quite clearly and plainly welcomed by the SSAC. If we have got the limits right—and I recognise that this is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston is making — it is obviously ridiculous to set limits that are designed to take account of the care that is provided in a particular home and then to pay an attendance allowance which is designed to pay for care on top. I think that that is generally accepted.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Having served in local government for some time and on the social services committee, I wonder if my hon. Friend could explain how he has reached the figure of £110 per week for residential care homes for the elderly when the economic rate charged to those who have a very modest income and capital is far in excess of that figure already? If the economic rate is more than £110 a week in a part III residential home, why have the Government pitched the figure which they are prepared to meet at below what is the economic figure and has been for some time in the local authority sector?

Mr. Newton: I will gladly look at any additional information which my hon. Friend — and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston—can give me on this subject. We recognise the difficulties in deciding precisely what the right figures are in this difficult area. We have taken the best information available to us, including information about the actual costs of local authority homes, setting these limits. But, as I have emphasised throughout this argument on a number of occasions and want to emphasise again tonight, we are very conscious of the need to monitor these provisions, because we accept the difficulties that lie in deciding precisely what the right figures are in this area and are entirely prepared to review the decisions we have made in the light of the further evidence or experience that may be brought forward.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: How has the nursing home charge of £138·60 per week been calculated? It is only £28·60 higher than the amount available for patients in ordinary residential care homes.


We must bear in mind the fact that the standard of care, the staffing level and the nursing care are very much higher in a nursing home.

Mr. Newton: Quite simply, we felt that the most sensible proxy to take for the additional costs of nursing care in addition to residential care was the rate of main social security benefit paid for care purposes—namely, the attendance allowance. We took, therefore, the higher rate of attendance allowance at £28·60.
I am conscious that a number of those concerned with nursing homes and other institutions have questioned whether that figure is sufficient. What we do not have is sufficient evidence to judge whether they are right in believing that the figure should be somewhat higher, or, if so, in deciding precisely what that figure should be. It is one of the matters to which, in our monitoring, we shall be paying particular attention. Indeed, we shall actively seek further information to improve our knowledge about the additional costs of nursing care over and above residential care. Should that information show that £28·60 is too low, we shall be willing to revise that figure.

Mr. Roland Boyes: I cannot understand the Minister's reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that he will take more evidence. The average number of people giving evidence to the Social Security Advisory Committee has been exceeded six or seven times. Indeed, the number of people giving evidence on this matter is four times more than the previous highest total. How much more evidence does the Minister want? He has all the evidence in a booklet produced by the Social Security Advisory Committee, but he has ignored almost every one of its recommendations.

Mr. Newton: I accept that we are not short of evidence in the sense of claims about the consequences of certain sets of proposals and about the desirability of higher limits—mostly from those who have an interest in the matter. However, we are short of sufficient objective data to go beyond the best assessment that we have been able to make in the figures that we have set out in the regulations. I really cannot go further tonight than to re-emphasise that these regulations and figures are not set in concrete. The Government are approaching this matter in the spirit of being willing to listen to further representations and, above all, to consider further detailed information that would enable us to refine the proposals. That is the sensible way in which to proceed.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: I am sure that what my hon. Friend has said about keeping the matter under review is a fair offer. He also said that these figures were not set in concrete. What would he have to do if he decided, after four or five months, that there was need for adjustment? Would we need another set of regulations or does he have the power to raise the figure slightly if that is required?

Mr. Newton: The Secretary of State simply has to set different figures. One of the advantages of the way in which we are proceeding is that we have the flexibility to respond to the concerns that hon. Members are expressing tonight. That is sensible.
Some anxieties will be relieved by the knowledge that for a home registered under more than one category the limit will reflect the care category of the individual

claimant. When a home is registered for the care of the mentally ill as well as for the elderly, the mentally ill limit, which is slightly higher than the residential care limit, will apply.
We accept the need for transitional arrangements and for additional protection for some existing claimants. People over pension age in residential care or nursing homes can continue for life to have the charge met at the existing level or until payment under the new limits becomes more favourable.
People under pension age in residential care or nursing homes can continue for a year to have their charges met at the current level. The same applies to hostels when residents remain in existing accommodation. For ordinary board and lodging cases, protection will be for between four and 13 weeks, depending on precise circumstances. People with special circumstances who receive the additional amount of up to £16·15 a week in ordinary board and lodging—mainly elderly and disabled people—will receive one year's protection.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will price protection include an element of inflation, or will a flat rate obtain throughout?

Mr. Newton: We never intended that an element of inflation-proofing should be included. The existing payment should be continued until it is overtaken by any subsequent rise in the limit which applies to a particular home.
This is a difficult and complex part of the supplementary benefit system. It is necessary to try to strike a reasonable balance between many considerations. We shall monitor the changes carefully, seek to improve the information available to us and be prepared to consider whether further changes should be made in the light of experience.
These proposals are not set in concrete for all time. We believe that they are essential to ensure a better use of resources to meet genuine social needs while checking waste and abuse. I commend the regulations to the House in that spirit.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The regulations should be set in concrete and thrown into the Thames so that they are never seen again.
The first set of regulations follow the usual pattern. The Minister explains why the law is not what he thought it to be, not what he said that it was a few months or years ago, and that therefore he is forced to change the regulations.
The second set of regulations are more unusual. Even before the resolution is carried, the Minister says that the regulations are faulty and unsatisfactory, that there is not enough evidence or data, and that they will be reviewed.
The Minister had said that the Government intended to review the figures in November 1986. Now they intend to review them in April 1986, despite the fact that the Social Security Advisory Committee said that the denial of an uplift and review in November 1985 seemed "punitive", so unsatisfactory did the Committee consider the figures in the document to be. Now the Government plan to delay the review by six months, unless Government Members influence Ministers.
We should all recognise that we are dealing with the consequences of Government policy in a number of areas.


We are not dealing with something that happened as a result of an unpredicted long-term trend. It is one of the Government's characteristics that they appear to be incapable of realising that the actions that they take separately in several different areas impinge one on another.
It was probably quite sensible that about a year ago the Minister raised the restrictions placed on offices on the claims that they should meet. The restrictions then operating did not meet the real needs of claimants and the real sums that they were being forced to pay. There was much criticism of the system at that time and the Minister relaxed it. He was not aware that while he was taking that action—as I have said, it was probably quite sensible in the context in which he took it—some of his colleagues were urging the privatisation of everything that the Government could get their hands on and the making of money out of any sort of human misery or need for which they could provide a service.
I accept that there are some who wish genuinely to care for the elderly, who have done so over many years and who now find themselves being hammered by a Government whom nearly all of them support. However, another group has sprung up. The members of it are usually admired by Conservative Members, and they are the so-called entrepreneurs. They have discovered overnight their concern for the elderly. In many instances, this realisation has come rather late in life. There is little doubt that the publicity that was given to the moves made by the Minister to allow a more relaxed attitude towards payments made those involved in the running of residential homes and board-and-lodging accommodation aware that there was a demand which could be exploited. There is little doubt that this has led to payments being made on a scale and in circumstances which were not originally intended.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Lady has cast an unfortunate slur upon many who have decided to provide private accommodation for the elderly, the mentally infirm, the mentally ill and others who cannot be accommodated in hospital. Will she admit that it is clear from the statistics in her possession that many of these entrepreneurs, as she calls them, have been social workers, nurses or psychiatric nurses who have spent their working lives looking after those who need help and who see a need for accommodation in the private sector? The slur that she has cast upon them is entirely unjustified.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman referred a short while ago to his local authority experience. He should consult his ex-local authority colleagues on their experience now. He would find that in almost every authority throughout the country there is worry about a new breed which is setting up homes to exploit the payments to which the Minister referred. Local authorities are not worried about those to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred, who have often spent a lifetime looking after those who are in care.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does the hon. Lady know that the nursing-home charges that are proposed will still be only a fraction of the cost of looking after patients in a geriatric wing of an NHS hospital?

Mrs. Beckett: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are a number of homes where the cost of providing care is very cheap because their standards are so low? We have already had examples of serious abuses, and this is concerning local authorities, including many which are Conservative controlled, throughout the country. If Conservative Members cannot distinguish between a decent person providing a proper service at a proper charge, who is being hammered by the Government, and those who are seeking to exploit the elderly, their information is defective, to say the least.
Charges have been increased for board and lodging. The Minister did not say much about that tonight. Indeed, he chose to stay away from board and lodging to some extent. We have heard a good deal from other sources about increased expenditure in this area, which has been due mostly to the increased number of young people who have been forced into board-and-lodging accommodation.
The Government seem to be astonished that hundreds of thousands of young people on the dole with no prospect of an independent life, let alone one financed by a decent job, should start to drift away from their homes, often in circumstances of family dispute. The Government seem to be even more astonished that sometimes those who have no jobs leave home at a time when the Government have imposed non-dependant deductions on families already sufficiently poor to receive housing benefit, with almost £9 a week extra to be paid for by the young person in work.
The Government ask why so many young people are going into board and lodging. It is because the vast number of young people — almost 50,000 — who go into this board and lodging accommodation which is often expensive and even more often squalid, have no real choice. The Government have so tied the hands of local authorities that, even in the face of rising need, they cannot provide sufficient places for the elderly, whether in residential care or in places for the mentally ill. The Government have presided over a catastrophic slump in housing. It is complacent twaddle for the Secretary of State to refer in his report to the ready availability of housing. He said:
there continue to be large numbers of unocuppied local authority dwellings".
That was the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the Social Security Advisory Committee.
It is a pity that before the Secretary of State put that reply in the hands of the House in March 1985, he did not read a report in February 1983 from his colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment. That survey of local authority dwellings stated:
According to the best assumptions available, there is a shortfall of public sector dwellings for rent to meet both special and general housing needs, which cannot be satisfied by other means.
The report continued:
The majority of empties owned by the 30 authorities, and almost all those vacant over a year, are those undergoing or awaiting rehabilitation, or demolition.
They are awaiting rehabilitation because the Government have cut the money that the local authorities are able to spend on rehabilitating those dwellings.
In 1977, it was predicted that we would need 300,000 houses a year to meet the growth in new households. For the past four years, there have been fewer than 200,000 completions a year. The shortfall has been especially dramatic in the public sector, to which one would hope that most of the type of youngsters who go into this


accommodation would turn. It was estimated that 120,000 houses would be needed, but for the past three years, there have been fewer than 50,000 completions a year. Over the past six years, public sector authorities have provided nearly 300,000 fewer houses than were thought necessary. It is no wonder, with such a shortage of public sector houses, that youngsters are forced into board and lodging.
In the same section of the report in which the Secretary of State for the Environment referred to empty houses, he said that there was an overall surplus of housing. More careful account should be taken of where housing is available, of the needs of those in overcrowded conditions, and so on. There is a net shortage in real terms of 800,000 homes, according to Shelter's estimates.
The money that is spent on providing housing is decreasing all the time. In 1985–86, gross capital expenditure by the public sector will be 40 per cent. lower, gross local authority capital expenditure will be 45 per cent. lower and net local authority capital expenditure will be 79 per cent. lower than in 1979–80, reflecting the reduction in the Government's contribution to housing.
These are the root causes of the problem, as the Social Security Advisory Committee identified in its report. The committee pointed out that the regulations
do nothing to resolve the underlying difficulties.
Referring to the proposes, the committee stated:
We doubt, however, whether any satisfactory control can be imposed on the use of supplementary benefit board and lodging accommodation until these issues are faced and dealt with … In our view, it is because they tackle the symptoms rather than the causes of growth in costs and numbers, that they are unlikely to provide a long-term solution.
Even during the past couple of days, hon. Members have received telephone calls and letters from the many agencies and groups involved in dealing with those who will be affected by the regulations. Those groups would normally, if not always, be wholly sympathetic to the Government. They certainly seek to be non-partisan and non-party political. [Laughter.] An hon. Member laughs. Does he call the Royal National Institute for the Blind partisan and party political? Perhaps he does if he does not agree with his Government. The RNIB points out, as did the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), the disadvantages and problems caused by the limits set by the Government for those in its homes. It draws attention to the difference between the limit for physically disabled people who become disabled before retirement, at 170 a week, and that for those who become disabled after retirement, at £110 a week.
I follow the logic of the Government's argument, but in that case, as in so many others, they are mistaken. The RNIB draws attention to one group about whom they are mistaken. It points out—I do not think that the Minister will be able to disagree—that people who become blind after the age of 65 find greater difficulty in adjusting to their circumstances. They need more care and assistance, which costs more. It draws attention to the fact that most people who go blind go blind later in life.
Age Concern says that, despite strong representations to the Government — the Social Security Advisory Committee supported this claim — there is no category for the elderly mentally infirm, although it identifies them as people who face increased costs.
The British Refugee Council draws attention to the unsatisfactory nature of the proposals for hostels. It says that the people with whom it deals have the greatest need for security and the avoidance of conflict with authority,

yet they face the greatest problem. With the costs for its hostels in central London, which it cannot reduce, it will have substantial difficulties and may be forced to close some of the hostels.
The Church of Scotland draws attention to the fact that, in its 41 homes that it runs for the elderly, the rates offered by the Government are below the rates it needs to charge to run the homes. It complains that local authorities are not allowed to top up the payments made for such homes. That brings me back to the point that I was debating with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), because the Church of Scotland says that there is great anxiety about homes which are exploitative and not properly run. If local authorities were allowed to top up payments to the level which might meet some of the cases that I suspect Conservative Members will mention later, it might offer an opportunity for a greater exercise of interest and control.
The SSAC report calls repeatedly and throughout for more research. The Minister said that there was not much evidence for the figures. The SSAC says that there is little evidence to support the proposals that are being put forward. It regrets the fact that transitional protection for board and lodging is confined to the level rather than the period in the area.
I come to board and lodging. The SSAC mentions the strong possibility — this is perhaps the most dangerous part of the Government's proposals — that the Government are on the verge of creating
a class of homeless and rootless young person who is unable to return to the parental home, for whatever reason, and who cannot remain long enough in any one location to find permanent accommodation or a job.
The Government suggest—
other acceptable accommodation is available to these young people if they choose to seek it — a proposition which we doubt
Ironically, the current proposals may actually hamper young people from moving into more settled housing by preventing them
from establishing the continuous residence qualification required both for local authority accommodation and for housing associations property.
The Minister said that young people in that category will have, depending upon their good fortune and circumstances, anything from four to six weeks to find themselves somewhere else to live. If they are under 26, they may have been living in the accommodation for two or three years without the opportunity to find a job. They will suddenly find themselves effectively out on their ear, without a real opportunity to re-establish themselves in a stable way of life. The pressure on them to move and move again or to lose their benefit is creating a group of new nomads, created by the Government.
One reads the Government's proposals first with incredulity and then with mounting anger as one realises the effects on, as is usually the case, some of the most vulnerable sections of the population. Realistically, four weeks is just not enough time to find a job for anybody who has the slightest difficulty. I notice that in his statement the Secretary of State says that 25 per cent. of young people find a job in under four weeks. That means that 75 per cent. of young people do not. In many parts of the country, after four weeks they will have to move on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) drew the Minister's attention to criticisms of


the proposals. The Minister said that he thought that my hon. Friend was harsh about what the SSAC said, so let me remind the Minister of what it said:
the proposed changes seem to us to have serious defects.
They are so serious that
we recommend that the changes are seen overtly as temporary changes … We think this is particularly the case with the proposals for ordinary board and lodging.
One of the worst aspects—although it appears to be the most minor—of the board and lodging proposals is the proposal that a couple with a child under 11 will be allowed only the rate for one and three quarter people rather than for two people, irrespective of the fact that the rate for two people is probably charged where they live. Despite the scathing comments of the SSAC about anecdotal evidence not being a sufficient basis for legislation, it did not seem to be able to discourage the Government from legislating on that basis.
Let me offer the Minister a different anecdote. Only yesterday I heard of a couple in west London who are fortunate enough to be paying £7·50 a night each for their lodging. They will lose £25·90 from the payments to which they are entitled, not because of the limits, although the limits are lower than what they are paying, but because of the one and three quarters effect. That young couple are in quite reasonable accommodation, but they have experienced worse circumstances. Two years ago they were living in accommodation so squalid that there was a terrible fire there. They were fortunate enough to escape, although some people who lived in the house were burnt to death. That is what they are going back to when the regulations come into effect. I find their anecdotal evidence much more important than the squeals that we heard from Conservative Members when the temporary regulations were debated, about the people living in pleasant seaside resorts who did not like seeing unemployed young people from Liverpool in their resorts during the summer. That is a little less important than the danger in which the Government's proposals will put so many young people.
I shall finish with just one other quote from the SSAC about all the people who want, the Government appear to think, to go and live in this board and lodging:
In some cases … claimants were enduring substantial domestic and other stress before moving into accommodation. The conditions … are often of an extremely low standard, and may involve sharing rooms with strangers, having to vacate rooms during the day, dirty and unsafe accommoation, and inadequate meals of poor quality. This is far from the luxurious lifestyle which it is sometimes implied that board and lodging claimants follow.
That option cannot be the foundation of a workable benefits policy.
The regulations are possibly the biggest shambles that the Government have put before the House so far on supplementary benefit. I hope that I am not pre-empting the Fowler reviews in saying that. They are more than a shambles; they are a disgrace. I say to the Minister and his colleagues that not only his Government and his party but the whole country will ultimately suffer from the systematic, step-by-step removal of dignity and hope from thousands of the most vulnerable young people in the country.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the debte must end at one minute past midnight, and many hon. Members wish to take part.

Mr. Gerrard Neale: To the people of north Cornwall the provisions are not a disgrace or a shambles. On the contrary, they are widely welcomed and people find them most reassuring.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said that 50,000 people were affected by the provisions. If her figures are correct, 4·5 per cent. of those people are in Newquay and north Cornwall. The hon. Lady seemed to imply that the coastal problem did not matter very much, but I can tell her straight that it matters a great deal to people in areas such as mine and those of many of my hon. Friends who feel equally strongly about this.
We greatly welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister listened so carefully and diligently to the representations made to him in the consultation period and that he has put a freeze on the payments. I especially welcome the area structure that he has imposed, which will greatly improve the situation in Newquay and in areas such as Thanet which have the same problem. We also welcome the imposition of a limit on the length of time for which the large number of people coming into these areas can enjoy not the squalid condditions the the hon. Member for Derby, South described but conditions in which many of my low-paid constituents could never afford to spend a holiday. I believe that the action taken by my hon. Friend the Minister will go a long way towards solving the problem.

Mr. Robin Squire: To be fair, when the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) mentioned squalor and so on she was quoting directly from the social security advisory committee report.

Mr. Neale: The hon. Lady suggested that Government policy had forced young people into this kind of situation, but there is no evidence that any of the young people coming from Scotland and the north-west to areas such as Newquay were driven by anything other than the greater benefits to be gained from so doing. As I have said before, throughout last summer there were more than 100 jobs available in Newquay, but more than 2,000 youngsters came in from outside the area and remained on the unemployed list for the entire summer.

Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but should not the Minister meet it by proposing that in areas where jobs are alleged to be available benefits should be directly linked with people taking the jobs rather than by introducing blanket provisions which affect everyone irrespective of whether jobs are available?

Mr. Neale: I will return to that point later.
I should make it clear to the Opposition that the indignation about the board and lodging payments made to young people coming into areas such as ours comes not from the wealthy or the traditional retired Conservative party supporters but from the low-paid and their families and even the unemployed who live in rented accommodation themselves. Those people greatly welcome the steps taken by my hon. Friend the Minister to cure the problem.
In areas such as mine it is recognised that provisions of this kind are temporary and designed for people in


particular circumstances. Some may come to regard them as permanent arrangements, but that is not how they should be seen and I understand that that is not how my hon. Friend the Minister sees them. The line that he is taking is most welcome and I support him fully.
However, as I said when the statement was made, I feel that during the course of the review which is to be continued, and which is very welcome, while my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security considers how the operation of the system may be unfair on some people —we would all wish him to look at that — he should also consider whether when someone moves from one area of unemployment to another — even on the basis of a two-week, four-week or eight-week claim — he should not be moving in pursuance of a job for which he has an interview. He should have some proof that he has a reason for going to that area.
There is 30 per cent. male unemployment in my constituency. It is preposterous to suggest that someone from Glasgow or the north-west stands a reasonable chance of getting work there. My hon. Friend must look at that problem, in the fullness of time. However, I congratulate him on what he has done. It will do much to improve the situation.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: First, of course a review was necessary. It would be irresponsible of any hon. Member on either side of the House to say that some of the costs falling on the Minister's budget were not beginning to get out of control. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale), to whom I listened with interest, is right to say that it is absurd to send youngsters looking for work to seaside resorts such as Newquay which suffer from quite high levels of unemployment, although personally I do not blame youngsters from Liverpool and Glasgow for going to such places if the system allows them to do so.
However, the review was premature. We are awaiting the imminent production of the Government's response to a much longer-term and, one hopes, much more fundamental and enlightened review of the whole housing benefit system, and I would have preferred these proposals to have formed part of that.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) talked about treating the symptoms rather than the cause. I share that view. For some of these 16, 17, and 18-yearolds, the education system is breaking down; and the youth employment situation in this country is as it is. That being so, it is inevitable that some casualties will be thrown onto the social services and onto our housing facilities, and the social services and housing facilities cannot measure up to the extent of the problem. Inevitably, the hon. Gentleman's Department gets it in the neck. He has to pick up the tab for the casualties of the education, employment, housing and social services systems.
If the Minister thinks that he can turn off the tap by screwing the money down, he is wrong. He will only push the problem further down the line into the hospitals and the prisons. That is what will happen if youngsters are thrown out of hostels and board and lodging accommodation.
We must consider the strategic issues. On 26 March, The Guardian wrote that
This Government's housing policy has now reached the stage of economic as well as social madness. Bed and breakfast

hotels in London are netting over £1 million a month in social security and ratepayers' money to accommodate homeless families … who could be accommodated more cheaply in council houses if only the Government would allow any to be built.
That is the level at which we should start to consider the problem. There are important aspects of social work and housing to be considered. We should spend more money on council housing and there should be greater opportunities in the private rented sector. I would be prepared to look at any proposals in that area that the Government brought forward. We should have hostels with proper standards to which the young people could go.
The limits are too low. I take the Minister at his word. He says that he will review the limits. My hon. Friends and I will watch carefully the way in which the proposals work and by November 1986—or much earlier if necessary—we will ask him to do something about them.
What is to happen to young people aged between 16 and 25 who are not in the exempted categories? I cannot answer the question put to me by some of the social work professionals in my constituency. What are these youngsters expected to do? Some of the people that I have spoken to think that these proposals are a precursor to supplementary benefit being completely withdrawn from 16 to 17-year-olds. I warn the Minister that, if he includes that in the package, he will get short shrift from us. The attitude displayed towards young people seems to be wholly against the Government's declared policy of labour mobility. That serious point should be considered.
Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has now left the Chamber, but she made an important point about the problems of senile dementia. There are real problems about the staffing commitments for the elderly and mentally infirm, but the regulations do not cover that. If the Government categorise types of homes, the homes but not the residents will be registered. No method has apparently been put forward for matching the needs of the residents with the provision of homes. There is a possible element of abuse there, which the Minister should consider.
It is unfair to set flat limits across the country for residential and nursing homes, according to the category of the home. That is too inflexible. If the Minister is prepared to have geographical differences for board and lodging payments, he should be equally flexible about the limits for residential and nursing homes. The level and limit for charges is too low. As I told him when he made a statement in the House on 26 March, some good and proper homes may have to close because in some areas the limits will be set too low.
I recognise the problem, but the Government have not handled it properly. I shall recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends vote against the regulations. They are premature, and too complicated, centralised and superficial. They are also designed to save money and are a body blow to youngsters and to elderly people who are least able to look after themselves.

Mr. Humphrey Maims: I wish to concentrate on DHSS payments to bed and breakfast hotels for the homeless. I broadly welcome the regulations. There have been some tremendous abuses in the bed and breakfast world. However, there is one area in which the Government have not so far acted.
In my constituency in Croydon I have come across some appalling cases. Sometimes husbands and wives, with two or three children, are condemned to live in 12 ft or 14 ft square rooms for months on end in conditions of the utmost squalor. Sometimes landlords charge about £100 a week to let one room. If that figure is multiplied by 10 for the number of rooms in the same hotel, the amount of abuse, hardship and sadness caused to those families can be understood. They certainly do not deserve the fate that they have met.
The Government are right to act by cutting the payments that can be made. But there are two customers for any service. Although the taxpayer is one, the other must be the family on the homeless end of the chain. As things stand, when the DHSS makes board and lodging payments for hotels, bed and breakfast establishments and so on, there is no obligation on it to inspect the premises in order to check that they are satisfactory. In addition, there is no legal obligation on the housing authority to enforce any minimum standards of accommodation. There are powers, but no duties.
If we say that we will cut the payments made, we must go further and say that when payments for such accommodation are made we must be sure that both sets of customers obtain good value. In future we do not want families to be crowded into one room for weeks and sometimes months on end. Those who live, sadly, in board and lodging accommodation should be given basic decent standards. At present that is often not so.
I support the Government's introduction of the regulations from a financial standpoint, but I must urge them to take action in the not-too-distant future so that minimum standards of accommodation can be enforced. That is in the interests of those at the sharp end of the homeless problem.

Mr. Donald Anderson: When what the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) has described happens to families who live in deplorable conditions in Croydon, it reflects a failed housing policy, economic madness because of the lack of investment in our housing infrastructure and failed social policies. One certain effect of the regulations is that, because the returns to landlords will be decreased, landlords will be tempted to squeeze, and will in fact squeeze, more people into limited and inadequate space, There will therefore be an increase in human misery of the kind which the hon. Member has described. That increase in human misery will not be monitored by local authorities because no obligations are placed upon them to monitor the deterioration in the nature of the accommodation which results from the Government's policies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was correct to place these proposals in the wider context of the failure of the Government's housing policy. Demand is increasing for demographic reasons and for a whole range of social reasons as households increase, young people leave home and the divorce rate increases. At the same time as the demand increases, the supply is decreased because of the Government's housing policy. The inevitable result is the army of young gipsies who look around for accommodation which they cannot find.
If the Minister wants other than anecdotal evidence, I can tell him that even during the last week four bed and breakfast accommodation places in Swansea have said in anticipation of these new regulations that they will no longer accept claimants. Therefore, the supply of accommodation, however unsuitable, will decrease more and more. The Government are concerned about the symptoms, not about the underlying causes. They view it narrowly as a supplementary benefit problem, as escalating costs with a Treasury perspective, rather than in the perspective of social need and the social effects of their policies. The Minister should be ashamed. He is bound to increase the human sadness and despair of those who are working with the homeless.
The Minister mentioned that the Social Security Advisory Committee had said that some concessions had been made by him in response to the points which it had made. I refer him to paragraphs 100, 101 and 102 where the SSAC say in terms that these proposals are radically flawed.
There is no appeals procedure in respect of the new ceilings and there is no statutory obligation to review. As for the position of the 26 year-olds, among the exemptions outlined by the Minister there is an exemption for those who are subject to a programme of rehabilitation and resettlement, but they will benefit only during the first month. May I ask the Minister to look again at those in this category who make a second or subsequent move during the period of rehabilitation.
I believe that this is a shameful response to a real human need. The result will be a reduction in expenditure but at the cost of increasing homelessness and misery. Would it not have been better for the Government to carry out proper research, as the SSAC recommended, and consider the fire hazards, the effect of the denial of funiture grants and, therefore, of independent housing for young people, and for them to look at the case for specialised housing and the need for adequate provision across the board, as recommended by the SSAC, instead of punishing the victims of the Government's own policies?

Mr. Roger Gale: The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) made two points in her speech, both of which were taken from press releases. I wish to cull from real experience and suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the points made by the Royal National Institute for the Blind, one of whose excellent homes is in Westgate-on-sea in my constituency, are valid; those homes provide special and affectionate care. I urge my hon. Friend to pay attention not to what the hon. Lady read from a press release but to what those who wrote the paper said. Age Concern suggested that there is a category missing from provision for the elderly mentally infirm. From my experience of the good nursing homes for the elderly in my constituency, I know that there is a category missing. I urge my hon. Friend to pay special attention to those two submissions.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that he believed the review was premature. The hon. Member for Derby, South said that youngsters were being forced to move away from home, and the suggestion is that this is a new problem. I am glad that my friend and adversary the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is here tonight, because he and I served on the governing body of a small primary school


in Holborn and St. Pancras about 12 years ago. He will know that the children who attended that school were, to a large extent, the children of those who had come south from the north, even then looking for work. Sadly, the position in Camden in those 12 years has not improved; it has become much worse. The area round Argyle square, which he will know only too well, has become a shameful red light district, populated in the main by young ladies from the north who come to London looking for work, and have certainly found it.

Mr. Frank Dobson: rose—

Mr. Gale: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find his own way and his own time to reply to that remark. He knows it to be true.
I have made radio programmes on this subject, and I have had the depressing necessity to trawl the platforms of Euston station late at night while making a documentary on Centre Point. I found there the young people—I am talking about 10 years ago, when the Opposition were in power — who were enticed from the north in the fond belief that the streets of London are paved with the gold that they certainly were not then and are not now paved with.
One need only go a mile from here to the arcades in Piccadilly to find the rent boys who have moved out of the bed and breakfast accommodation that Opposition Members apparently believe they should be invited to move into from the north. Those young men and women are on the streets of London, plying whatever trade they can. The limit for young people will now be eight weeks. I would not want a child of mine to live for eight days in one of the hotels in Holborn and St. Pancras, never mind eight weeks.
I wish to mention the problem that has become known as dole-on-sea. It is no kindness to entice young people from other parts of the country to areas such as Margate, where there is higher unemployment now than there is on Wearside. This point was made on a Radio 1 programme the other night. The producer in her wisdom invited 20 young people from the Soho project with their handler, and wheeled them into Margate. She then trawled the hotels of Margate for DHSS claimants who were put into the audience and inflamed with a young singer by the name of Bragg who, I understand, is a particular friend of the Leader of the Opposition. One point came out of that: "Would you like to be left at the end of the week with £9 in your pocket?". There are elderly people in my constituency who, having paid their bills, having bought their food and having paid their mortgages, would dearly love to have £9 a week left in their pockets.
The other point that came out of the programme was a reference to what the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) called "gipsies." I do not believe that it is the Conservative party, the Government and these regulations that are likely to breed a generation of gipsies. I believe that the generation of gipsies, in so far as it exists, was bred by those who sought to entice young people away from their homes into the squalid accommodation and squalid circumstances that we have been discussing tonight.
Indignation is not the prerogative of the Opposition. Care for young people is not the prerogative of the Opposition. There are Conservative Members, of whom

I am one, who spend a great deal of time working with young people. We firmly believe that the young deserve some dignity. We believe that they will be better off in their own home environment, that they will be safer among their friends, the young people with whom they went to school and the parents of those young people, even if they are unemployed in their own town, than they are likely to be if they are enticed away from home to live in accommodation where circumstances are less than ideal. I think of circumstances where, for example, the owner of the property has to go round the corner to the local pub in the middle of the night to ask whether he can borrow a barrel of beer because his own supply has run out. These young people will be better off in their own environment than in the kind of accommodation where the proprietor chauffeur drives his young people to the DHSS office to make sure that they claim their money to put into his pocket. They will be better off in their own environment than in the kind of property where the proprietor says, "Don't worry, you are on DHSS. Come and work for me and the black economy, and do not bother about a real job".
The Conservative party has done a great deal to introduce training measures for young people to endeavour to ensure that the sense of dignity to which I have referred is preserved so that young people have a real future and a real opportunity to look forward to.
The regulations support the principle of good hostel accommodation which is infinitely preferable, because in the main it is caring, as opposed to the kind of accommodation that Opposition Members have been talking about tonight.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am interested in the emotion that my hon. Friend is displaying and also perhaps the knowledge that he has. However, how would he explain the fact that in the north-west region, for instance—and he comes from a seaside resort—the number of households accepted as homeless has risen from 4,250 in the second half of 1982 to 4,850 in the first half of 1984? Does this not indicate that there is a problem? It is not necessarily the problem of which my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security spoke so well in opening the debate, but it is the policy of the Government to restrict specialist accommodation for the single people in the country by a reduction in the amount of their capital receipts that local authorities can spend.

Mr. Gale: We have had the debate upon the expenditure of capital receipts. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and I went through the same lobby on the first vote. The difference between us is that on the second vote, having heard the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) to the effect that he was permitting 100 per cent. of capital receipts to be made available for low-cost housing built specifically for sale, and having secured a further concession in which my hon. Friend agreed to look at the same principle—

Mr. Jeff Rooker: The hon. Gentleman's vote came cheap.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was not present in the debate. If he wishes to interrupt not from a sedentary position but on his feet, I will gladly give way to him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman had finished. Is he giving way to an intervention or has he finished?

Mr. Gale: I was hoping to give way to the hon. Member for Perry Barr, who apparently prefers to intervene from a sedentary position than on his feet.
The profit levels in the accommodation to which the regulations apply are unacceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the House. The regulations, which have my full support, will go a long way towards solving not only the problem of the exploitation of the social services and social security system, but the problem of the exploitation of the young people.

Mr. Hugh Brown: I agree with the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) that there is a problem, and none of my hon. Friends has tried to deny the existence of that problem. The hon. Gentleman described it, however, in somewhat lurid and exaggerated terms.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) may not be aware that this has not been a good week for Scotland in general and Glasgow in particular. The Prime Minister seemed to say that the capital city was not capable of coping with 50,000 football supporters — most of them friendly—from Scotland.
Tonight the hon. Member for Cornwall, North made another attack on Scotland. He spoke of youngsters in his constituency complaining about 1,000 young people new to the area not taking jobs that were available. Is there not machinery within the existing structure for dealing with people who will not take work? If the indigenous young people of his area will not take jobs that he says are available, there must be a social problem behind the influx of people in the area.

Mr. Neale: The figure is 2,000 and evidence can be produced to show that some have come from Glasgow, to name but one city. The level of payment to the young people who are coming in is more, by far in some cases, than the pay that they can get for the jobs available in the area. There is an incentive for them to come to the area, but a total disincentive for them to work.

Mr. Brown: I will not delay the House by dealing with the matter at length. The hon. Gentleman demonstrates that he knows nothing about the problem.
Without wishing to be patronising, I thought that the Minister introduced the regulations with his usual competence, though I thought that he lacked his usual conviction. Indeed, I got the distinct impression that he was unhappy with the regulations because he knew that they would not solve any problems and that he would soon have to revise them.
In that connection, does the Minister concede the point made by the advisory committee that a review will be needed long before 1986? Will he confirm that the various scales can be uprated before that date? He said that a further instrument would not be needed to uprate them. May we be assured that the problems which will arise, certainly in the short term, will be closely monitored?

Mr. Newton: We have said in response to the SSAC that we shall review them within a year of their coming into operation.

Mr. Brown: It may have to be done sooner than that. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the scales being monitored. It is to be hoped that they are reviewed soon.
The regulations represent a further attack on 16 and 17-year-olds in particular and on those under 25 in general. My constituency, by all standards of deprivation, is one of the worst in the country. It contains virtually no accommodation other than council houses. There are no board and lodging racketeers there because the sort of establishments that they run do not exist in the area.
There are genuine reasons why many young people leave home. This is one of the discriminatory elements in the regulations, because the young people are going to be forced to go to other parts of the city or the country when that is not what they want to do. So I hope that some sympathy will be shown and that, if these regulations are proving to be unsatisfactory and a lot of young people are likely to become rootless as well as homeless, the Ministers will give urgent consideration to changing the conditions so far as they affect young people.

Mr. Robin Squire: It is perfectly possible to wish to crack down on the sort of abuses which my hon. Friends have mentioned and still to be very concerned about aspects of the regulations. In particular, it seems to me that to be contemplating reducing ceilings on weekly payments by, in places, as much as £30 a week at a time when there is a national shortage of housing, particularly in the city areas, at the same time removing the right of appeal to the Secretary of State, can only cause what is essentially a housing rather than a social security problem to worsen.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said, quite rightly, that one of the consequences would clearly be that landlords of such houses would merely increase the amount they charge in order to maintain their profits. I am sure that he would also accept—because he understands these things — that in many areas, because landlords can obtain higher figures from tourists, those who are currently in the houses will lose their option and take second place to tourists. We have to recognise that there are market forces at work.

Mr. Neale: Would my hon. Friend also accept that there is a very clear indication as well that some of the landlords will switch back to putting proper catering facilities in the rooms and then allowing the people to come back within the housing benefit provisions, so that they will be covered that way?

Mr. Squire: I very much hope that my hon. Friend is right. He is speaking, and rightly so, of the position in a tourist coastal town. I am concerned, perhaps inevitably, about the problems in the big cities, particularly London, and the regulations cause me great concern.
Those who imply that there is the option of going back to a safe, warm home must understand that for many people under 25 that simply is not an option. If they returned home they would face physical violence, sexual harassment or God knows what else. That is not to say that there are not some who could return, but we must not delude ourselves into believing that a large number come into that category. They do not come from the sort of safe and protected home that many hon. Members come from.


We forget that at our peril. The Social Security Advisory Committee report spells out very clearly this absence of alternatives.
I wanted to make the point about housing generally because, although it is self-evident, it needs to be put on the record.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Squire: I think that in fairness I should not. Normally I would not anticipate what my hon. Friend was going to say, but if he was going to suggest that there were faults, because of the absence of sufficient private acommodation, on the part of the Government, the legislation or whatever, I might be inclined to agree with him, but if that is the case, that is the problem we should tackle rather than what we are discussing tonight.
My other concern has to do with the board and lodging restrictions as regards those under 25. I feel genuinely concerned about this and believe that to some extent it is going against what we are rightly urging people to do. We want them to travel around and make themselves available for employment, yet we are instituting a system which economically at least, gives them every incentive to move on. We can all pull figures out of the air, of course, but the Government's own estimate is that anything up to 50,000 people under the age of 25 may be involved.
There will be three options. They will stay with friends or relatives — but if they do they will receive the reduced rate; they will sleep rough—there is sufficient evidence of that around London, and that cannot be reduced by what we are now discussing; or they will move to another area — which may cause difficulties with employment. It certainly will not ease their position if they are forced to move when they are trying to establish themselves. After six months, they may return to their original area.
We must remember the additional administrative costs to the DHSS of the considerable amount of mobility that must follow as a direct consequence of the regulations.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I shall be brief because of the limited time available. Hon. Members may wish to hear comments from the Minister in reply to the debate.
There is great concern in Scotland about the effect of the regulations, especially because of the young Scots who may be involved. Rather than put the argument that I orginally intended to put, I shall refer to only two points. First, the position of 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland is different from that of those in England and Wales because a child becomes an adult in Scotland at the age of 16. There is no social work protection or provision thereafter.
If the parents cannot afford to keep a child—perhaps because of housing benefit — or where other factors drive a child from home, difficulties will arise. I hope that the Minister will address that point.
Secondly, in Dundee the liaison committee for the homeless had intended to establish a hostel to deal with young people, but because of the limit placed on the charges it can no longer do so.

Mr. Newton: I can respond to only a few points, but as a number of hon. Members have made significant and

important points I shall ensure that they are considered and, if necessary, I shall write to hon. Members where that might be helpful.
I re-emphasise what I said about our willingness to consider further representations and evidence and what I said to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) about our undertaking to review the limits within a year. He said that we may wish to do that earlier. If we reach that conclusion, we shall do so because that is the spirit in which we are approaching this matter.
A number of hon. Members have referred to representations from the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which have also come directly to me from Ian Bruce during the last couple of days; it was only today that I saw the representations of the British Refugee Council, and I have also seen those that Age Concern made about the elderly, senile, and mentally infirm.
It is entirely within the spirit of what I have already said when I say that I shall look carefully at what has been said, especially concerning the disabled and the blind. The blind may represent a special problem, and I shall approach the issue in that light.
As our response to the Social Security Advisory Committee indicated, we shall look carefully at its proposal for the elderly, senile and mentally infirm. However, it is quite simply a problem of defining who can be categorised in that area. If that problem can be overcome, I should wish to consider again whether there could be a separate limit.
I must say a few words about the broader issues that have been raised, especially in relation to young people. The point that appears to have been missed by most of those who have been most critical in the debate is the extent to which the problem is not, on any reasonable analysis, the result of the unhappy problem of unemployment among young people or of any other of the social problems to which reference has been made. The problem has been created mainly by the regulations which we now seek to change.
The number of young people of 25 years of age and under in board and lodging accommodation rose by 60 per cent. in 1983. It is expected to have risen by 51 per cent. in 1984 and is forecast to rise by 52 per cent. in 1985. That cannot be the result of problems to which hon. Members have referred. It is the result of a system which has given young people excessive encouragement to leave home. they have been trapped so that they cannot afford to take work. That does no service to young people.
I hope that those hon. Members who have spoken strongly in the debate will recognise that part of our responsibility is to ensure that we do not continue to build up the problem. The regulations are not a perfect answer and we shall continue to try to improve them. However, they are an essential step in tackling a problem.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 168.

Division No. 180]
[12.01 am


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Alexander, Richard
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Ancram, Michael
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Tom
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Ashby, David
Bendall, Vivian


Aspinwall, Jack
Benyon, William


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Best, Keith






Bevan, David Gilroy
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Blackburn, John
Lord, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lyell, Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
McCrindle, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Macfarlane, Neil


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Maclean, David John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Bright, Graham
McQuarrie, Albert


Brinton, Tim
Major, John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Malins, Humfrey


Bruinvels, Peter
Malone, Gerald


Buck, Sir Antony
Marlow, Antony


Burt, Alistair
Mather, Carol


Butcher, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Carttiss, Michael
Merchant, Piers


Cash, William
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Chope, Christopher
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Miscampbell, Norman


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Moate, Roger


Cockeram, Eric
Monro, Sir Hector


Colvin, Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Conway, Derek
Moore, John


Coombs, Simon
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Cope, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Cormack, Patrick
Murphy, Christopher


Couchman, James
Neale, Gerrard


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Needham, Richard


Dickens, Geoffrey
Nelson, Anthony


Dorrell, Stephen
Newton, Tony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Nicholls, Patrick


Dover, Den
Normanton, Tom


Durant, Tony
Norris, Steven


Dykes, Hugh
Onslow, Cranley


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Eggar, Tim
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Emery, Sir Peter
Osborn, Sir John


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Ottaway, Richard


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Fallon, Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Farr, Sir John
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Favell, Anthony
Pollock, Alexander


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Porter, Barry


Forman, Nigel
Portillo, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Powell, William (Corby)


Fox, Marcus
Powley, John


Freeman, Roger
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Gale, Roger
Proctor, K. Harvey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Gorst, John
Rathbone, Tim


Greenway, Harry
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Gregory, Conal
Rhodes James, Robert


Grist, Ian
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Gummer, John Selwyn
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hannam, John
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Harris, David
Rowe, Andrew


Hayes, J.
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hayhoe, Barney
Ryder, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Heddle, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Sayeed, Jonathan


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunter, Andrew
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jackson, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Silvester, Fred


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sims, Roger


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lang, Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawrence, Ivan
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Speller, Tony


Lester, Jim
Spence, John


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Spencer, Derek


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lilley, Peter
Squire, Robin





Stanbrook, Ivor
Waldegrave, Hon William


Steen, Anthony
Walden, George


Stern, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Ward, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Watson, John


Stokes, John
Watts, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Sumberg, David
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wheeler, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Whitfield, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Terlezki, Stefan
Wiggin, Jerry


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wolfson, Mark


Thornton, Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter
Woodcock, Michael


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Yeo, Tim


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tracey, Richard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Trotter, Neville



van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Waddington, David





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Deakins, Eric


Alton, David
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Dixon, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dobson, Frank


Ashdown, Paddy
Dormand, Jack


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dubs, Alfred


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Barnett, Guy
Eastham, Ken


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Ewing, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Fatchett, Derek


Benn, Tony
Faulds, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Boyes, Roland
Fisher, Mark


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Forrester, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Foster, Derek


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Bruce, Malcolm
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, W. E.


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Godman, Dr Norman


Campbell, Ian
Gould, Bryan


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hardy, Peter


Cartwright, John
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clarke, Thomas
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Clay, Robert
Home Robertson, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoyle, Douglas


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
John, Brynmor


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Charles


Cowans, Harry
Kilfedder, James A.


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Craigen, J. M.
Kirkwood, Archy


Crowther, Stan
Lamond, James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leadbitter, Ted


Dalyell, Tam
Leighton, Ronald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Litherland, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)






Loyden, Edward
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


McCartney, Hugh
Rooker, J. W.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rowlands, Ted


McGuire, Michael
Sedgemore, Brian


McKelvey, William
Sheerman, Barry


McNamara, Kevin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McTaggart, Robert
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McWilliam, John
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Madden, Max
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Marek, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Martin, Michael
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Snape, Peter


Meadowcroft, Michael
Soley, Clive


Michie, William
Spearing, Nigel


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Strang, Gavin


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Nellist, David
Wallace, James


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


O'Brien, William
Wareing, Robert


O'Neill, Martin
Weetch, Ken


Park, George
Welsh, Michael


Parry, Robert
White, James


Pavitt, Laurie
Wigley, Dafydd


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Pike, Peter
Wilson, Gordon


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Prescott, John
Woodall, Alec


Randall, Stuart
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Redmond, M.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Richardson, Ms Jo



Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Robertson, George
Mr. Alan McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1985, which were laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Amendment Regulations 1985, which were laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]

Orders of the Day — PETITIONS

Transport Services

Mr. Don Dixon: I beg to ask leave to present two petitions on behalf of the citizens of the constituency of Jarrow. It is appropriate that these petitions should be presented today when there has been a massive demonstration by many old-age pensioners who are concerned about the threat to their concessionary passes, many people from rural areas who are concerned about their evening and weekend bus services, many men in the transport industry who are worried about staff conditions, pensions and jobs and many people who are concerned with public transport, which is threatened by the Transport Bill being considered by Standing Committee A.
One of the petitions was presented by the chief executive of the south Tyneside district council on behalf of many citizens who went to the town hall to sign the forms. The other petition was presented to me by the Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union at the Jarrow depot of the National Bus Company. The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the citizens of the Jarrow Constituency.
Sheweth That the proposals contained in the White Paper on Buses will have a detrimental effect on the residents of the Jarrow Constituency who use Public Transport, will put in jeopardy the Tyne and Wear integrated Transport System known as one of the best Transport Systems in the World, will put under threat the concessionary Bus passes used by the pensioners, disabled, unemployed and school children, and will cause further loss of jobs in the Transport industry in an area of already high unemployment and will have damaging effects on the wages and working conditions for those who are left in the Transport industry.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Transport not to put into effect the proposals of the White Paper on Buses.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I wish to present a petition which reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of Wigan borough council sheweth:
That the Wigan Borough Council have examined the White Paper on "Buses" and the Transport Bill
That they fear that, if implemented, the White Paper will mean:—

(a) concessionary fares for elderly, disabled and other people in special need, including schoolchildren, could disappear
(b) that the strict safety standards needed for public service vehicles will not be upheld
(c) that continuity, reliability and stability of services will end
(d) many bus and rail services will vanish
(e) the few services that are left will no longer link and services will become less frequent
(f) passengers will not know which services should run at what times, or what fares are to be charged
(g) operators will compete with old, unsuitable buses and coaches
(h) neither Users nor Ratepayers will have any say about their local public transport services

That there are wider aspects to the proposals. The ratepayers' considerable investments in the Metropolitan Counties on bus and rail facilities and improvements will be thrown away. Fewer


new buses will be bought. This will mean more unemployment in the bus building industry. Socially needed transport services will be put under pressure. Highway costs, road accidents and congestion will increase. Business and the community as a whole will suffer.
That … Public Transport is needed as a social service. The proposals of the White Paper would destroy both.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House reject any legislation to implement the proposals of the White Paper on buses.
And your Petitioners will ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Tony Benn: I wish to present a petition under the common seal of the council of the borough of Chesterfield signed by the mayor and the acting town clerk about the Transport Bill and the White Paper on buses. I do it with some feeling because today there has been a complete stoppage of the Chesterfield bus service to draw attention to the consequences of the policy, and a large number of my constituents came to London to give emphasis to this petition which shows that the borough council has examined the White Paper on buses and the Transport Bill. They fear, in my opinion with grounds, that if implemented the Bill will mean a threat to the concessionary passes for the disabled, the elderly and other people in need, including schoolchildren.
The strict safety standards needed for public service vehicles that have been maintained under the present system, and their drivers, may not be maintained.
The Petition continues:

(c) that continuity, reliability and stability of services may end;
(d) many bus and rail services may vanish, particularly those to rural areas and on unprofitable routes;
(e) there may not be a co-ordinated network of services and services may well become less frewquent, prticularly at off-peak times;
(f) there may not be available a comprehensive timetable of services and confusion may arise;
(g) some new operators may compete with old, unsuitable buses and coaches;

Neither users nor ratepayers who will be required to invest in the services will have any say whatever about their local public transport services as they do at present, and there may, as a result of these and other factors, be more road accidents as a result of congestion in busy town centres.
The petition continues:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House reject any legislation to implement the proposals of the White Paper on buses and the Transport Bill.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I should like to present a petition to the House from Central Regional council to the effect that Central Regional council has examined the White Paper on buses and the Transport Bill. It states:
That they fear that, if implemented, the White Paper will mean:

(a) concessionary fares for elderly, disabled and other people in special need, including schoolchildren, could disappear.
(b) that the strict safety standards needed for public service vehicles will not be upheld
(c) that continuity, reliability and stability of services will end
(d) many bus and rail services will vanish
(e) the few services that are left will no longer link and services will become less frequent

(f) country and suburban routes will disappear as they will not be cross-subsidised
(g) passengers will not know which services should run at what times, or what fares are to be charged
(h) operators will compete with old, and/or unsuitable buses and coaches
(i) neither Users nor Ratepayers will have any say about their local public transport services.

That there are wider aspects to the proposals. The ratepayers' considerable investments in Central Region on bus and rail facilities and improvements will be thrown away. Fewer new buses will be bought. This will mean more unemployment in the bus building industry. Socially needed transport services will be put under pressure. Highway costs, road accidents and congestion will increase. Business and the community as a whole will suffer.
That Public Transport is needed as a social service.
The proposals of the White Paper would destroy both.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House reject any legislation to implement the proposals of the White Paper on Buses and the Transport Bill.
And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

I also have a petition in similar terms from the Strathclyde National and Local Government Officers Association, SPTE sub-branch.
I wholeheartedly support the terms of both petitions because of the detrimental effect that the Transport Bill will have on passengers and employees in public transport, and on the workers in the bus building industry in companies such as Walter Alexander's, one of the few manufacturing bases left in my constituency, where since the Government took power, the work force has been reduced by over 50 per cent., from over 1,000 workers to about 500.
I am grateful for the opportunity of presenting both petitions and adding my wholehearted support to them.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. James Lamond: I, too, wish to present a petition along similar lines to those that we have already heard. I do so gladly because of the strong support that I give to the statements that are made in the petition.
This one comes from the East advisory committee for public passenger transport in Greater Manchester. The petition states:
the Advisory Committee representing bus and rail users in its area, with advice from local groups ranging from the local Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Trades Councils to Age Concern and disabled people's organisations, as well as Townswomen's Guilds and the National Association of Women's Clubs in the Eastern area of the Greater Manchester County have examined the White Paper on "Buses".
That they fear that, if implemented, the White Paper will mean:—

(a) concessionary fares for elderly, disabled and other people in special need, including schoolchildren, could disappear.
(b) that the strict safety standards needed for public service vehicles will not be upheld.
(c) that continuity, reliability and stability of services will end.
(d) many bus and rail services will vanish.
(e) the few services that are left will no longer link and services will become less frequent.
(f) passengers will not know which services should run at what times, or what fares are to be charged.
(g) operators will compete with old, unsuitable buses and coaches.
(h) neither Users nor Ratepayers will have any say about their local public transport services.

That there are wider aspects to the proposals. The ratepayers' considerable investments in the Metropolitan Counties on bus and rail facilities and improvements will be thrown away. Fewer


new buses will be bought. This will mean more unemployment in the bus building industry. Socially needed transport services will be put under pressure. Highway costs, road accidents and congestion will increase. Business and the community as a whole will suffer.
That the Advisory Committee believe Public Transport is needed as a social service. The proposals of the White Paper would destroy both.
As I have mentioned, I strongly support every aspect of the petition. In particular, I am concerned about employment in the north-west of England, where firms are dependent on orders for new buses for their continued employment. The East advisory committee for public passenger transport in the Greater Manchester area has demonstrated its concern for every user and provider of bus services in the area, and concludes by saying:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House reject any legislation to implement the proposals of the White Paper on buses.
And your Petitioners will ever pray &amp;c.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I beg leave to present a petition drawn up by constituents in Liverpool, West Derby, a constituency in which about 50 per cent. and in some areas 75 per cent. of the inhabitants do not have the use of private cars. They believe that the Transport Bill is iniquitous and contrary to their interests and they call upon the Government to withdraw it.
The petition reads as follows:
To the Honourable the Commons of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled The Humble Petition of the Residents of Liverpool West Derby Sheweth that the Bill proposing to deregulate bus services and the breaking up and selling off the National Bus Company, will mean a serious reduction in the quality of service available to the West Derby travelling public and increased fares. Furthermore, the loss of Integrated services that seem to be favoured for the London Regional Transport, but not the North of England, by the Honourable Member Mr. Ridley MP Secretary of State for Transport.
Wherefore your petitioners Pray that the Bill proposing to Deregulate and Privatise the National Bus Company, PTE and Municipal Transport be withdrawn and your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Harry Cowans: I rise with some sadness to present this petition because when I first came to the House I firmly believed that it was the Mother of Parliaments and of democracy. Sadly, so much rubbish has been put upon the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport during the proceedings on the Transport Bill that I must put it on record that I speak as the Member of Parliament for Tyne Bridge and not as the Chairman of the Select Committee. Far from any answer to the arguments on the Bill, there has been a blatant attack on an individual Member and that must be placed on record.
I present this petition on behalf of Gateshead borough council. It has been claimed that only vested interests are against the Bill, but the councillors of Gateshead speak from no vested interest. They represent the people of the area — old-age pensioners, people who run buses, businesses and the community—and they have discussed the Bill at great length. They greatly fear that if the Bill is implemented without amendment
the Government's proposals might mean a short term improvement of services on the more profitable routes but would result in … destruction of the integrated public transport system in Tyne and Wear, which has been built up over many years and has been tried and proved, and a waste of national resources by duplication of buses on profitable routes; a loss to a large degree of cross subsidy which at present allows more rural

areas to enjoy a reasonable service; added congestion on the already congested road network in central areas — particularly over the Tyne bridges. There will be additional administration for annual tendering on subsidised routes … difficulties in assessing payments to various operators because of concessionary fares.
That is a real problem. It is no good for the Government to argue that concessionary fares will be available. There is a real fear that the added administration on concessionary fares will take away from the elderly money that should go to them.
The proposals will result in the need to enforce conditions relating to safety and routing applied to a variety of operators.
That is a matter of real concern. Where there is only one operator, or two, the administrative cost is small. With a multitude of operators, the cost becomes very large.
My constituents plead that if, unfortunately, the legislation is implemented
Tyne and Wear should be excluded on the grounds that it has achieved all the objectives set by the Secretary of State for London Regional Transport.
Tyne and Wear has achieved all the targets set by the Secretary of State for LRT. It is an anomaly — a nonsense — to destroy Tyne and Wear when it has achieved those targets. Gateshead borough council has made an assessment right across the board.
The petition concludes in the same way as all the other petitions, but the petitioners' voices will not be heard. They say:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House reject any legislation to implement the proposals of the White Paper on buses and the Transport Bill.
Democracy is being negated. The petitioners' voices will not be heard; the voice of the people will not be heard. This nonsensical legislation will be passed.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Max Madden: I wish to present a petition from the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council concerning the Transport Bill. It has been signed by more than 100,000 residents of the West Yorkshire county council area, and more than 1 million more signatures were presented to the Prime Minister earlier today. The county council, having examined the White Paper and the Transport Bill, allege that:
concessionary fares for elderly, disabled and other people in special need, including schoolchildren, could disappear … that the strict safety standards needed for public service vehicles will not be upheld … that continuity, reliability and stability of services will end … many bus and rail services will vanish … the few services that are left will no longer link and … will become less frequent … passengers will not know which services should run at what times, or what fares are to be charged … operators will compete with old, unsuitable buses and coaches … neither Users nor Ratepayers will have any say about their local public transport services.
The petitioners further allege:
The Ratepayers' considerable investments in the Metropolitan Counties on bus and rail facilities and improvements will be thrown away. Fewer new buses will be bought. This will mean more unemployment in the bus-building industry. Socially needed transport services will be put under pressure. Highway costs, road accidents and congestion will increase. Business and the community as a whole will suffer.
Those are the main points to which the petitioners draw attention. It is clear from today's lobby of the House and the magnificent demonstration in London that these views are widely supported and that the Bill is deeply unpopular. The petitions urge the Government to withdraw the unnecessary and unwanted legislation as quickly as possible.

To lie upon the Table.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the city council of Derby, which is signed by the city secretary and affixed with the common seal of that city. It formally protests on behalf of the people of Derby at the proposals in the Transport Bill.
The petition has tremendous all-party support and cross-community support throughout the whole county of Derbyshire. The Secretary of State for Transport seems to have a rather unfortunate track record in such matters. I have rarely known such a breadth and depth of opposition to the proposals of any Government. That opposition comes from a tremendous variety of groups. Like most hon. Members I have been inundated not with fairly standard letters, as is often the case in matters of great public interest, but with closely argued well-documented cases. They have come from a wide range of groups, each looking at the White Paper from their individual viewpoints, and all finding it wanting.
As the petition shows, they are all worried that strict safety standards will not be maintained, and that the reliability and stability of services will end. They are also worried about concessionary fares and all the other items that have already been well documented, and which are named again in the petition of the city council of Derby as matters that cause concern in many parts of the country.
All those who are concerned about safe and reliable public services, geared to need and run to provide value for money, are concerned at the proposals in the Bill. The council believes that the
proposals of the White Paper would destroy public passenger transport both as a transport system and as a social service.
The Government's proposals have met with almost universal condemnation and they certainly meet with universal condemnation in the city of Derby. As the city council says in the petition:
And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Gordon Brown: I beg leave to present a further important petition about the Government's bus policy. It comes from Fife regional council, and is signed by the chief executive, the convenor and the leader of the administration. It was prepared after a conference involving community organisations from five constituencies in the county of Fife.
The petition expresses concern at the deterioration in the quantity and quality of bus services, in the regularity and reliability of services, and in the stability and safety of services that will result from the Bill. It also expresses concern at the threat to concessionary fares and at the risk to employment as a result of the Transport Bill. That threat to employment comes in an area which, as the petition points out, already has more than 21,000 unemployed people. Indeed, 4,000 more people are at risk of losing their jobs in the mining industry. About half the population do not have private cars and depend wholly on public transport.
The petition concludes:
the Council is therefore totally opposed to the Government's proposals for deregulation and privatising local bus transport as contained in the Transport Bill.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House reject any legislation to implement the provisions of the Transport Bill.
I commend this excellent petition to the House.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Schoolchildren (Employment)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Alfred Dubs: This Adjournment debate is about the employment of children, by which I mean young people of school age. One of the main benefits of having such a debate is that it is possible to see which of the three Government Departments responsible has put up a Minister to answer it. Responsibility for this subject is divided between the Department of Health and Social Security, the Department of Education and Science, and the Department of Employment. I believe that there has been little Government activity or willingness to accept responsibility for the problem because that responsibility has been divided between the three Departments.
I should make it clear that I am not concerned in any way with the ordinary pocket-money earning activities of school children. That has been going on for many years and there is no reason why it should not continue. I am concerned about when it ceases to be merely a matter of small jobs for pocket money and becomes a major employment activity.
The facts are hard to come by, because no hard statistics are kept. However, the estimate is that about one in four children of the ages 13, 14 and 15 have some sort of a job. The survey excludes informal jobs like baby-sitting and running errands. About 600,000 or more children are employed in other than informal jobs. The known facts indicate that children below the age of 13 also work.
We are indebted to the studies carried out by or on behalf of the Low Pay Unit, which provide the most accurate and revealing information on the subject. Surveys were carried out for the Low Pay Unit in a number of areas, including London. The London survey covered, at least in part, the borough of Wandsworth where my constituency is located. It showed that 35 per cent. of the children interviewed were working and that 26 per cent. of those children were under the legal age, while 28 per cent. of them were in jobs that were illegal and 65 per cent. were working illegal hours. This meant that in London overall about 83 per cent. of the children working were somehow in breach of the law — or, rather, their employers were in breach of the law. The corresponding figure for the Wandsworth sample was 65 per cent., although the sample was too small to be statistically reliable.
There is clearly, and understandably, a conspiracy of silence on the subject. Employees who are employing young people illegally have a vested interest in not talking about it and, for understandable reasons, the children do not particularly want to talk about it. Therefore, we are doubly indebted to the Low Pay Unit for providing this information. Of course I understand that if parents are out of work and their children are able to earn some money, pressure will be put upon them to make a significant contribution to the household income.
What types of jobs are carried out? In the Wandsworth survey, delivering newspapers, doing milk rounds and shop work were three of the largest categories, but cleaning offices, building construction and decoration,


working at a garage or petrol station, or in a pub or offlicence — indeed, even farming, gardening and washing cars — were all jobs that featured in the survey. There were many others.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): Can it be right that farming was found to be an occupation in Wandsworth?

Mr. Dubs: The category was farming or gardening. The same questions were also asked of young people living outside London. However, I assume that in Wandsworth the category would have been gardening rather than farming.

Mr. Patten: There are not many farms in Wandsworth.

Mr. Dubs: The Minister is right, but there is at least one. Outside London, children find work in manufacturing industries, although the survey does not cover manufacturing.
Why is there so much concern? The first reason relates to the hours of work. The London survey showed that 20 per cent. of the boys worked for 16 or more hours a week. One boy covered by the survey worked for 47 hours a week in his own family's take-away restaurant.
It is not only in London that there is concern. I have received a letter from a retired teacher who referred to the fact that, when he was teaching, a pupil of his, then aged 13, started work each day at 4.30 in the morning at a local dairy and that other pupils of his worked regularly in supermarkets from 5.30 to 8 o'clock in the evening. He also talked about pupils studying for O and A-levels who worked for more than two and a half hours on three or four nights a week, and made the further comment that those youngsters had no protection from their trade union.
The second concern is low earnings; 64 per cent. of boys in London were earning less than £1 an hour. There is evidence that many young people are being seriously exploited in terms of low pay. It is also doubtful whether those employers adequately cover the youngsters for national insurance purposes. Then there is the question of illegal employment, where the children are under-age, working illegal hours, or doing jobs that they should not be doing.
There is also a problem of safety and accidents at work. For example, there are health and safety provisions regarding the lifting of weights, the sort of machinery operated and minimum rest periods. The figures for deaths and accidents at work are not clear, because the Department of Employment does not collect figures in a way that would be useful for this purpose. It includes figures for 16-year-olds who are at work, as well as under16-year-olds, and it includes figures for working children even if the deaths or accidents did not occur at work. That is a difficulty, because the bald figures suggest that, in 1983, there were six deaths involving children; as for accidents, for which the figures are in doubt, there were nearly 400 major accidents at work and many more lesser accidents. There is also anxiety about the lack of safety measures, such as no protective clothing and children working when they are tired. The consequences are that children fall asleep at school and do not perform adequately in examinations.
There is legislation for this, including the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920, which

prohibited certain employment for children aged under 14, especially with regard to industrial, manufacturing, building and construction work. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 stipulated that children aged under 13 should not work, that they should not work before the end of school hours, before 7 am or after 7 pm, and that they should not work for more than four hours a day. It also prohibited the lifting of heavy weights. There are also local authority byelaws. There was an attempt in the Employment of Children Act 1973 to produce a uniform set of regulations that would supersede the byelaws and apply to all local authorities, but that Act was never brought into force.
As regards safety provisions, there is the factory inspectorate, but there are few convictions for breaches of the law. Indeed, in 1983, three employers were prosecuted for eight offences, and eight convictions were obtained. The figures for previous years are similarly low. There is also a wages inspectorate, working under the wages councils, and there are education welfare officers, but few prosecutions are brought under any of these measures.
What is to be done? First, we must recognise that this is a serious problem. If only the Government would say, "Yes, this is a serious problem", and emphasise the fact, that itself would have a salutary effect. Secondly, we must enforce the law. It is clear that there have been major breaches of the law, but the number of prosecutions suggest that there are either too few inspectors or an unwillingness to bring illegal employers to book, or a combination of the two.
Thirdly, we should not have to depend upon the Low Pay Unit and its surveys to provide the bulk of the information on this subject. The Government have a responsibility to collect information about the problem. Fourthly, we must implement the 1973 Act. Fifthly, we must then consider whether further measures are necessary.
We have a responsibility as a society to alter Victorian attitudes to this problem. It is not good enough to say that children are enterprising and should therefore be allowed to do it. The fact is that their health and sometimes their lives are at risk. Much of the work is illegal. It affects their schooling, and it is wrong. Moreover, it may deprive school leavers of jobs.
For all those reasons, I hope that the Minister will respond by saying that the Government recognise the problem and are willing to take action.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): It is characteristic of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) to address this problem with even-handedness and level-headedness. He has raised some important points. I should like to try to respond in the fashion in which he has asked of me, because I appreciate that his interest in this matter is genuine and longstanding. Indeed, he has been pursuing it vigorously with my Department for a number of years, he has written to me about it, and now he has been successful in raising the issue on the Adjournment of the House.
The hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his speech raised the issue of who might be replying on behalf of the Government. It does not strike me as odd or unusual in Government that more than one Department should have a legitimate interest in a particular area. To take by


analogy the problems that we have in combating drug misuse, my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Department, the Department of Education and Science, the territorial Ministries, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Overseas Development Administration all try to work together to do our bit to combat this menace. In exactly the same way, a number of Departments—the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Employment and my own Department — have a legitimate interest in children and children's welfare, particularly with regard to employment matters. My Department is in the lead to the extent that will become apparent during my response. It would be difficult to try to allocate all responsibility to one Department in this difficult area.
Of course we are concerned about allegations concerning children being illegally employed. We are well aware of the allegations made in the Low Pay Unit report on working children, which was published recently, and in the excellent BBC2 programme, Brass Tacks. It is always a matter of concern if laws to protect the welfare of children are not being properly observed, and there can be the most tragic consequences in this area and in other areas about which we read in the press from time to time. However, it is the duty of employers to obey the law, and the primary responsibility for the welfare of children rests in the first instance with their parents, foster parents or those who have a duty of care towards the children.
I think that there have been some misunderstandings, and I welcome the opportunity to try to set the record straight. But to do so, I shall have to go into some detail about the existing arrangements.
There is no doubt that working when one is a young person is a popular thing to do. A lot of people like doing it. I know that the hon. Member agrees with that and does not seek to inhibit it at all. I entirely concur with his view. But we need legislation to ensure that children are not exploited. There is a long history of such legislation. Legislation which is a combination of primary legislation and local authority byelaws allows children who are still at school to have a part-time job before or after school or both and/or during school holidays, but we need strict controls. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 which prohibits from working children below the age of 13. No child may be employed before 7 in the morning or after 7 in the evening on any day, before the close of school, or for more than two hours on any day on which he has to attend school, and no child can work for more than two hours on a Sunday or lift or carry anything so heavy as to be likely to cause him injury. I suspect that the area where these legislative rules are stretched most of all is in early morning paper rounds, if my experience and that of the hon. Gentleman is anything to go by.
All local authorities operate byelaws made under the 1933 Act except, curiously enough, the Isles of Scilly. Administration and enforcement of the legislation is the responsibility of the local education authorities, which usually work through the education welfare service. In addition, the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 prohibits the employment of children in any industrial undertaking, particularly mines and quarries. I dare say that mines and quarries are as unusual in Wandsworth as are farms. In this case, the factory

inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive is the enforcing authority. I would be the first to admit that under different Acts different enforcing authorities come into play, but it has ever been thus with laws in this country which have been attacked from a number of different points of view.
The Health and Safety Executive, through the agricultural inspectorate, is also the enforcing authority for legislation relating to agriculture which prohibits the employment of children in activities such as operating circular saws. The overall guiding principle behind the children's legislation and the local authority byelaws is that the child may work only to the extent that the health, education and general welfare of the child does not suffer.
Children's welfare is a subject in which my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security, whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber listening to the debate, is greatly interested, an interest which he fully followed when he was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security responsible for children's issues. It is characteristic of him to take the time, even at this late hour, to attend our debate.
If a young person wishes to take a part-time job, we must then ask whether he will, as far as possible, be protected from exploitation. That is what the hon. Gentleman wished to be assured of. I support him, as do the Government, in wishing to see that there is no such exploitation. As I explained, comprehensive restrictions are set out in the legislation covering the minimum age of employment, permitted hours of work and types of occupation.
In addition, the byelaws include detailed requirements to enable local authorities to vet any proposed employment and the child's fitness to undertake that employment. The employer is required to provide details of the work and a medical certificate showing that the employment will not be detrimental to the child's health or education. The child then gets an employment card as a requirement of his employment. All authorities which have byelaws, with the exception of Cornwall and Wiltshire, operate a system such as that. Cornwall and Wiltshire have similar arrangements.
In addition to the issue of employment and exploitation, the hon. Gentleman raised the question of danger, and I share with him a fear that accidents may occur to young people, wherever they work, be it in an urban environment or in the countryside on farms, where, tragically, accidents occur all too often.
The Low Pay Unit report was interesting in that respect. It suggested that about 30 per cent. of children had suffered an accident or injury while at work. It may help to put that in context if I explain that the Low Pay Unit used a very wide definition indeed of "accident". If the position is considered on the basis that the Health and Safety Executive considers it—there is usually support for the work of the Health and Safety Executive from hon. Members on both sides of the House—a rather different picture emerges. It is not possible to provide precise figures, but in 1982, the last year for which we have up to date figures, no more than 125 accidents occurred to children in employment. We are not complacent about the situation, but that gives a different picture from that presented in the report of the Low Pay Unit.
It is illegal for children to work in industrial undertakings. In view of the number of accidents to children in agricultural undertakings — not all of which


occur while children are at work — the agricultural inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive devotes a great deal of time and effort to reducing the accident rate by successful publicity, education and enforcement action and campaigns.
If, alas, a person under 16 is unfortunate enough to be injured in an accident at work or, even worse sometimes, contracts an industrial disease, there is provision under the industrial injuries scheme for the payment of benefit. That is not widely appreciated. This is the case although national insurance contributions are not payable by either an employer or an employee on any money paid to an employee before his or her sixteenth birthday. There can therefore be no evasion at all of the law relating to national insurance matters where an employee is under 16 whether he is legally or illegally employed. Again, this is something which is not widely appreciated.
The Low Pay Unit report suggested that schoolchildren are generally employed at low rates of pay. That cannot be a very surprising overall finding; it is exactly what most of us would expect. It suggests that on average £1 an hour or less is about the amount that is paid to children.
I should explain in this context that wages councils are already empowered to set minimum rates for young people under 17. It is true that wages council rates apply only where the employee works a minimum number of hours a week—that is, more than two hours a day or 12 hours a week overall. None the less, the wages councils have a distinct remit in cases such as that. In many cases, of course, wages councils will not have anything to say where children are working part time for fewer hours than that. Where there are no set minimum rates, it is a matter for agreement between the employer, the child and the parents.
I do not wish to turn this debate into any wide-ranging review of the role of parents and the family in these issues, but it is critically important that the parents and families of young children who work take a responsible and a caring attitude as regards the hours the children work and the conditions under which they work and have due regard to the sums of money which are paid to the children for the work they do. That critically important role of the parents cannot be handed over to anyone else.
Equally, the schools have great responsibilities. The hon. Member for Battersea quoted one or two cases of school teachers reporting that children were getting up at 4.30 in the morning, working in dairies, coming to school exhausted and performing substantially below par. That is deplorable, if it is true. In cases such as those the schools have a clear duty to act. If schools suspect that children are being exploited and that the law is being broken they can notify parents about what is and is not permissible. Or they can take the matter up with individual parents through the education welfare service. Where a child's education clearly is being adversely affected by employment, the school should report the matter to the local education authority under section 59 of the Education Act 1944—the great Butler Act. The authority has power to prohibit an employer from employing a child and it also has power

to impose restrictions. One wonders whether education authorities remind themselves often enough of their duties in this context.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Employment of Children Act 1973 provides for the Secretary of State to make national regulations to replace local authority byelaws. He has asked that, in an attempt to solve the problem, this Act should be implemented. Certainly byelaws have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State for Social Services and we have achieved a considerable measure of uniformity since 1973. Local authority associations were consulted in 1975 and again in 1977 on the implementation of this Act, but it was concluded that, because of the resource implications for local authorities, the introduction of all the Act's provisions could not then be justified.
I am afraid that I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, for exactly the same reasons as were apparent in 1975 and 1977, it is today still considered to be inappropriate to impose these further responsibilities on local authorities. It is for local authorities to ascertain priorities within the available resources for enforcement. However, that is not to say that, because this Act has not been implemented, a great deal cannot be done. The hon. Gentleman was brief, and I welcome that because it has given me the opportunity to put on the record, in an integrated manner, the whole picture as the Government see it.
To say that simply because we cannot implement all the provisions of the 1973 Act means that nothing can be done is flying in the face of the legislation. It is also flying in the face of the responsibilities of parents and of education authorities. I hope that education authorities are considering whether they are acting as effectively as they can in this context; whether teachers are reporting children at educational risk and whether the authorities are acting crisply and quickly enough and disseminating their decisions widely in the local environment so that there is a demonstration of concern that would inhibit other employers from exploiting young children.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment has asked the Health and Safety Commission to assess the implications of the Low Pay Unit's report on aspects of its responsibilities. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will find a most concerned response from the Government to that important report. We may not agree in every respect, but we are grateful for the report, as it has stirred a measure of public debate. It has allowed us to say to education authorities and others that not only do they have duties, they have powers to do things.
The hon. Gentleman will be most interested in these findings, as we are in Government. We continue to do what we can within a free society and within the family framework of this country to ensure that young children who work are not exploited, that their safety is looked after, that they are well paid and that they are not made use of.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past One o' clock.